
    CENTENNIAL LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martin BECKER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-2566.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 15, 2002.
    Thornwell F. Sowell, III, A. Burns Jones, Sowell, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stuart F. Pierson, Troutman Sanders, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   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 tarn 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 previously 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 summary 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 therefore 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.  