Nathaniel Adderley, Sr. v. Countrywide


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-04893-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645561]. Mailed to: Adderley. [15-1415]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1415 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1415 NATHANIEL M. ADDERLEY, SR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS; COUNTRYWIDE N.A.; COUNTRYWIDE SERVICING, LP; COUNTRYWIDE TAX SERVICE CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA NA; BANK OF AMERICA NA, individually and as successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS SERV, Countrywide Legacy Employers; SPS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, LP; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-04893-TLW) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel M. Adderley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1415 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel M. Adderley, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. the record and find no reversible error. for the reasons stated by the district We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm court. Adderley v. Countrywide Mortg., No. 3:14-cv-04893-TLW (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2015). We dispense contentions 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

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?