Kathleen Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998922888]. Mailed to: Kathleen Blick, Harold Blick and Elizabeth Grau. [12-1423]--[Edited 08/23/2012 by CH]

Appeal: 12-1423

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1423

KATHLEEN BLICK; HAROLD BLICK,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, As “Trustee” for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust
2005-3; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As “Trustee”
for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC)

Submitted:

August 21, 2012

Decided:

August 23, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathleen Blick, Harold Blick, Appellants Pro Se. Jason Cameron
Hicks, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1423

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kathleen and Harold Blick appeal the district court’s
order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss their action to quiet title in real property.

We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district
court’s rejection of their claim that Defendants lacked standing
to foreclose on the property.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial

of this claim for the reasons stated by the district court.
Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC
(W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2012).
claims,

we

confine

Appellants’ brief.

our

Turning to the Blicks’ remaining

review

to

the

issues

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

raised

in

the

Because the Blicks

fail to challenge the court’s resolution of these claims, they
have forfeited appellate review of those issues.
affirm the court’s denial of relief.

We therefore

We dispense with oral

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

2