
    Anand L. DANIELL, Appellant, v. Michael VUKOSA, Individually on behalf Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; Michael Josenhans, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; Robert Collier, Individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Sally Lebow, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and SourceFire, Inc.; John C. Becker; Martin F. Roesch; Steven R. Polk; Tim A. Guleri; Michael Cristinziano; Arnold L. Punaro; Charles E. Peters, Jr.; Kevin M. Klausmeyer; Cisco Systems, Incorporated; Shasta Acquisition Corp.; Acquisition Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 19, 2014.
    Anand L. Daniell, Appellant Pro Se. Edward B. Gerard, Stephen J. Oddo, Justin D. Rieger, Robbins Arroyo LLP, San Diego, California; Patrick Charles Smith, De-hay & Elliston, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Yelena Trepetin, Charles J. Piven, Charles Noah Insler, Brower Piven, Stevenson, Maryland; Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Mark D. Gately, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph K. Kanada, Erik Jeffrey Olson, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Palo Alto, California; Thomas Matthew Buchanan, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Washington, D.C.; J. Erik Connolly, Robert L. Michels, Dan K. Webb, Andrew J. Yahkind, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.
    Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anand L. Daniell appeals the district court’s order certifying a class for a class action complaint and approving a settlement agreement, thereby overruling Dan-iell’s objection to the settlement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Daniell v. Vukosa, Nos. 1:13-cv-02271-JFM; 1:13-cv-02332-JFM; 1:13-cv-02377-JFM; 1:13-cv-02483-JKB (D.Md. Apr. 18, 2014). 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.  