Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 16-1604 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1604 JAY CLOGG REALTY GROUP, INC.; STANLEY ADOFF; AGV SPORTS GROUP, INC.; MICHAEL PARROTTE; STEVEN G. BERRY; BREY CORP.; DEBRA COLBERT; GERMANTOWN COPY CENTER, INC.; GOLD LEINS & ADOFF; PEGGY HARRIS; HOLDEN ROGERS; KATHLYNNE RAMIREZ ESQUIRE LLC; ANDREW RENGARTS; STEPHEN A. SHECHTEL; JAMES J. TEMPLE JR. PA, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and JAY CLOGG; ELMECO ENGINEERING, INC.; TIBOR SARKADY; MICHAEL BREY; JOHNNY R. GARZA; KENSINGTON PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC.; STANLEY SHAPIRO; JAMES J. TEMPLE, JR., Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; METLIFE GROUP, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-00493-DKC) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. February 3, 2017 Stephen H. Ring, STEPHEN H. RING, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Daniel T. Stabile, SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP, Miami, Florida, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) request, and granting summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife Group, Inc., on Plaintiffs’ claims, brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 227 (West 2014 & Supp. 2016), and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-3201 to 14-3202 (West 2013). reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jay Clogg Realty Grp., Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 8:15-cv00493-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2016; May 2, 2016). We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.