Robert Van Buren, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., trading as Sam’s Club

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1390
ROBERT VAN BUREN, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WALMART, INC., trading as Sam’s Club,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00911-DKC)
Submitted: May 28, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021
Before DIAZ, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott C. Borison, BORISON FIRM, LLC, San Mateo, California; Robert Persante,
PERSANTEZUROWESTE, P.A., Clearwater, Florida; Peter A. Holland, Emanwel J.
Turnbull, THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant.
Dominic E. Draye, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Van Buren, who brought the underlying action against Walmart, Inc., trading
as Sam’s Club (“Walmart”), alleging claims under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-101 to 13-501, and state law claims for negligent
misrepresentation and fraud, appeals the district court’s order granting Walmart’s motion
to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Van Buren failed to adequately
allege his claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“[W]here the well-
pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,
the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d
186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[N]aked assertions of wrongdoing necessitate some factual
enhancement within the complaint to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. See Van Buren v. Walmart, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-00911-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --