Gail Sparrow v. Bank of America, NA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for judicial notice [999576772-2], denying Motion for judicial notice [999516485-2], denying Motion for judicial notice [999512063-2]; denying Motion to strike [999535848-2] Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00388-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court. [999576778]. Mailed to: Gail Sparrow. [14-1960]

Appeal: 14-1960

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1960

GAIL B. SPARROW; VICTOR H. SPARROW, III,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; THE FISHER LAW GROUP, PLLC,

INC.;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00388-JFM)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided:

May 4, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gail B. Sparrow, Victor H. Sparrow, III, Appellants Pro Se.
Craig Robert Haughton, Jessica Erin Morrison, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland; Monica E. Webb, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Jeffrey Barry Fisher, Martin Stuart Goldberg,
FISHER LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1960

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gail

B.

Sparrow

“Sparrows”),

appeal

and

Victor

the

H.

district

Sparrow,
court’s

III

(together,

orders

granting

Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
pursuant

to

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

motions for judicial notice. *

12(b)(6),

and

Because

sufficiently

the

challenge

dispositions,

the

Sparrows’
the

Sparrows

record

and

find

no

denial

of

relief.

brief

for

district

bases

the

have

does

forfeited

not

court’s
appellate

In any event, we have reviewed the

reversible
Nor

See 4th Cir. R.

informal

arguably

review of the court’s order.

related

On appeal, we confine our review

to the issues raised in the Appellants’ brief.
34(b).

denying

did

error
the

in

the

district

district
court

court’s

abuse

its

discretion in failing to address the Sparrows’ request for leave
to

amend

responsive

the

complaint,

pleading.

See

which
Fed.

*

they
R.

presented
Civ.

P.

only
7(b),

in

a

15(a);

Appellee the Fisher Law Group, PLLC (“Fisher”) has moved
to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Victor Sparrow alone
signed the notice of appeal and Gail Sparrow did not.
We deny
the motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2).
See Becker v.
Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 766-67 (2001).
In so doing, we
conclude that Fisher’s reliance on Picking v. Yates, 288 A.2d
146 (Md. 1972), is misplaced.
We deny Fisher’s subsequent
motion to strike a letter filed by Gail Sparrow regarding her
status as a party to the appeal because the letter does not
prejudice Fisher’s rights in any way.

2

Appeal: 14-1960

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm.
judicial

notice

filed

in

We deny the Sparrows’ motions for

this

court

and

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