
    Thomas COYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OMNICARE, INC.; Edward O’Connell; Beth Meseroll, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-2026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 20, 2015.
    Decided: Feb. 24, 2015.
    Thomas Coyne, Appellant pro se. Ana-na Wright Arnold, Jennifer Lynn Curry, Jackson Lewis PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Coyne appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Coyne’s claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012), and the Maryland Flexible Leave Act (“MFLA”), Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-802 (LexisNexis 2014 Supp.). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Coyne’s FMLA claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Coyne v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01225-CCB, 2014 WL 4384629 (D.Md. Sept. 3, 2014). We further affirm the grant of summary judgment on Coyne’s MFLA claim because Coyne did not commence taking leave prior to his termination. See Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-802(f); Gainsburg v. Steben & Co., Inc., 519 Fed.Appx. 199, 200 (4th Cir .2013) (No. 12-1476) (“[T]he MFLA applies only to an employee who ‘has taken leave,’ ... [t]he clear language of the statute precludes any ¿vague, atextual argument that requesting leave or providing notice of leave — rather than actually taking it by spending time away from work — constitutes protected activity.”). We deny Coyne’s motion to appoint counsel and 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.  