Curtis Steele v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999424279-2]. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00704-RJC-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999542771]. Mailed to: Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington. [14-1873]

Appeal: 14-1873

Doc: 19

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1873

CURTIS STEELE; YOLANDA HARRINGTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CAPITAL ONE HOME LOANS, LLC; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; US BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee;
HSBC HOME EQUITY LOAN CORPORATION I; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00704-RJC-DSC)

Submitted:

February 18, 2015

Decided:

March 10, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis
Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Donald Richard Pocock, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1873

Doc: 19

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss their civil complaint and the magistrate judge’s order
denying their motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

We

affirm.
First,

after

a

thorough

review

with

an

eye

toward

the

liberal reading afforded their filings, see Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we conclude that the Appellants have
asserted
motion

no

for

dismissal
brief

error

on

of

the

arises

aside

to

leave

appeal
amend.

Any

original

only

from

discussion

complaint

incidentally,

the

as

in

denial

of

their

concerning

Appellants’

Appellants

the

informal

assert

that

dismissal of their case was in error only because they were
denied leave to amend their complaint.

Moreover, Appellants

abandoned their original complaint below after conceding that it
did not properly present their claims.

We therefore decline to

review

dismissing

the

district

court’s

order

Appellants’

complaint, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and in so doing, we have
“focus[ed] . . . on discerning the expressed intent of the [pro
se] litigant.”

Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 811 (4th Cir.

2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1294 (2014).
Second,
appellate

we

review

conclude
of

the

that

Appellants

magistrate
2

judge’s

have
denial

forfeited
of

their

Appeal: 14-1873

Doc: 19

motion

to

Filed: 03/10/2015

amend

their

Pg: 3 of 3

complaint.

The

timely

filing

of

objections to a magistrate judge’s order in a nondispositive
matter is necessary to preserve appellate review of that order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274 (4th
Cir.

2011).

failing

to

Appellants
file

have

objections.

forfeited

appellate

Accordingly,

we

grant

review

by

leave

to

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm.
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

3