Centennial LLC v. Becker

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CENTENNIAL LLC,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  No. 00-2566 MARTIN BECKER, Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-97-1126-3-22) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Thornwell F. Sowell, III, A. Burns Jones, SOWELL, GRAY, STEPP, & LAFFITTE, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stu- art F. Pierson, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 2 CENTENNIAL LLC v. BECKER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Centennial, L.L.C., appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Martin Becker in Centennial’s action in which it sought a declaratory judgment and an accounting from Becker for any proceeds he might receive from his qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.A. § 3729-3731 (West 1983 & Supp. 2001). Centennial asserted that the False Claims Act case was based on information Becker discovered within the course and scope of his agency relationship with Centennial. We have previ- ously granted the motion to submit this case for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. We now affirm. Centennial contends that the district court erred in granting sum- mary judgment because the evidence showed that there existed some genuine issues of fact, which would preclude the entry of summary judgment. It also argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment when Centennial had not been afforded full discovery. We agree with the district court that Centennial’s asserted issues of fact are based on mere speculation. See Ennis v. Nat’l Ass’n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 62 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, after review of the materials in the Joint Appendices and the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error, and there- fore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Centennial, L.L.C. v. Becker, No. CA-97-1126-3-22 (D.S.C. Nov. 15, 2000). AFFIRMED