
    Cecil F. MOTLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOST HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; Host Hotels & Resorts of Virginia, L.P., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1646
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 29, 2017
    Decided: December 22, 2017
    
      Wayne J. King,' Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Walter E. Gillcrist, Jr., BU-DOW & NOBLE, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cecil F. Motley, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Host Hotels & Resorts of Virginia, L.P., in his personal injury action. “[W]e review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district court ‘shall grant summary judgment 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.’ ” Id. at 568 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to ... the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving party must rely on more than eonclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials in the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Motley v. Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-02062-PX, 2017 WL 1406297 (D. Md. Apr. 20, 2017). 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  