In this appeal, John Russo challenges the district court’s June 26, 2009 order granting summary judgment on his claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. He contends that material issues of fact remain that are sufficient to establish a case for the jury on both claims. Regarding his breach of contract claim, he argues that the record before the district court precluded its determinations, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the alleged contract because the evidence failed to show (1) a meeting of the minds between the parties, (2) the terms of the contract, and (3) adequate consideration for Office Depot’s purported promises.

We have carefully considered the record in this case and, for the reasons the district court stated in its June 26 order, find no merit in either of Russo’s claims. The judgment of the district court is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.