UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1908
HAMPTON B. LUZAK, a citizen of the State of New York,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MERRILL BARRINGER LIGHT; J. TRAVIS BRYANT; MR. J. RANDOLPH
LIGHT; COASTAL FOREST RESOURCES COMPANY, a Virginia
corporation,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
PAUL B. BARRINGER, II,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00501-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael R. Smith, Jerrod M. Lukacs, KING & SPALDING, LLP,
Atlanta, Georgia, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Justin A. Torres, KING &
SPALDING, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Edward J. Fuhr,
Matthew P. Bosher, Johnathon E. Schronce, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,
LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Charles B. Molster, III, LAW OFFICES OF
CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; William D.
Dolan III, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. DOLAN III, P.C., Tysons
Corner, Virginia; Robert Vieth, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, Tysons
Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Hampton B. Luzak appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Luzak’s
complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims. We review de
novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing
facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650
F.3d 423, 435 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment should be
granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “‘[T]here is no issue
for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the
nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.’”
Newport News, 650 F.3d at 434 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant
legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not
err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on
Luzak’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3