John Singletary, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Wachovia Mortgage

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999141286-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00484-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999225540]. Mailed to: John Singletary, Jr., Lydia Applegate. [13-1771]

Appeal: 13-1771

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1771

JOHN G. SINGLETARY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, its employees to
include agents individually and collectively to include
David Bates,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00484-RMG)

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

October 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John G. Singletary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Lydia Blessing
Applegate, Stafford J. McQuillin, III, William Howell Morrison,
John H. Tiller, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Charleston,
South Carolina; Hamlet Sam Mabry, III, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER &
BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1771

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
John
court’s

order

G.

Singletary,

denying

his

Jr.,

motion

appeals
for

from

the

district

reconsideration

of

the

order granting summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Wachovia
Mortgage Corporation in his civil action.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Singletary v. Wells

Fargo Wachovia Mortgage Corp., No. 2:11-cv-00484-RMG (D.S.C. May
16, 2013).
We

dispense

contentions

We deny Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2