
    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.
    No. 16-1908
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 28, 2017
    Decided: March 9, 2017
    Michael R. Smith, Jerrod M. Lukács, 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. MOL-STER, III, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; William D. Dolan III, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. DOLAN III, P.C., Tysons Corner, Virginia; Robert Vieth, HIR-SCHLER FLEISCHER, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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., 660 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). “ ‘[Tjhere 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (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  