Nathaniel Adderley, Sr. v. Countrywide
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?