James Gibson v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00304-LO-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998756747].. [11-1165]

Appeal: 11-1165

Document: 30

Date Filed: 01/04/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1165

JAMES O. GIBSON; TERI GIBSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
NECTAR PROJECTS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00304-LO-IDD)

Submitted:

December 13, 2011

Decided:

January 4, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Edwin Brown, BROWN, BROWN, & BROWN, PC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellants.
D. Margeaux Witherspoon, Rachel
McGuckian, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Appeal: 11-1165

Document: 30

Date Filed: 01/04/2012

Page: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1165

Document: 30

Date Filed: 01/04/2012

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James O. Gibson and Teri Gibson appeal the district
court’s

orders

denying

the

Gibsons

leave

to

amend

their

responses to the Appellees’ requests for admissions and granting
summary judgment against the Gibsons in their action seeking to
prevent the Appellees from foreclosing on their property.

We

have

In

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

particular, we reject the Gibsons’ assertion that our holding in
Horvath v. Bank of New York, N.A., 641 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2011),
precludes entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees
and

requires

summary

judgment

in

the

Gibsons’

favor.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3