Adrienne Richardson v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 14-1039 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1039 ADRIENNE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01356-CCB) Submitted: August 25, 2014 Decided: September 8, 2014 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. David Hoskins, Max F. Brauer, THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lauren M. Burnette, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C., Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adrienne Richardson appeals the district court s order granting Defendants motion to dismiss her complaint. complaint, Midland Richardson Credit alleged Management, that Midland Inc., In her Funding violated the LLC Fair and Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p ( FDCPA ), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, §§ 14-201 to -204, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, §§ 13-101 to -501. We reviewed the have considered district the court s parties order de arguments novo. and See Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir. 2011). have Aziz v. Having found no reversible error, we affirm the district court s order. See Richardson v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01356-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2013); see also Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 331-33 (6th Cir. 2006) (rejecting argument that a debt collection lawsuit filed without the immediate means of proving the existence, amount, or true owner of the debt is deceptive under the defendant FDCPA, violated and the dismissing FDCPA when plaintiff s she allegation never denied in that her complaint that she owed [defendant] a debt, nor did she claim [defendant] owed ). legal misstated or misrepresented the amount that she We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the material before this Court and argument will 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.