Robert Gross v. Bank of America, NA
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-02680-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999236777].. [13-1310]
Appeal: 13-1310
Doc: 21
Filed: 11/08/2013
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1310
ROBERT GOSS; SHIRLEY GOSS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Successor by merger to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-02680-CCB)
Submitted:
October 28, 2013
Decided:
November 8, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants.
Craig R. Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS LLP,
Baltimore,
Maryland;
K.
Lorraine
Lord,
MCGUIREWOODS
LLP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-1310
Doc: 21
Filed: 11/08/2013
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Homeowners Robert and Shirley Goss appeal the district
court’s
orders
dismissing
their
civil
action
against
the
servicer of their mortgage, in which the Gosses alleged various
Maryland
state
participate
in
law
claims
the
Home
related
Affordable
to
their
request
Modification
to
Program
(“HAMP”), and denying their motion to reconsider that order.
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
We
See
Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, 714 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
See Goss v. Bank of Am., No. 1:12-cv-02680-CCB (D. Md.
Jan. 8, 2013; Feb. 7, 2013).
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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?