James Luther v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to show cause [999633153-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999710163]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-1539]

Appeal: 15-1539

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1539

JAMES T. LUTHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

November 24, 2015

Decided:

December 2, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James T. Luther, Appellant Pro Se.
Terry Catherine Frank,
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Hunter Wilmer Sims,
Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1539

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James T. Luther appeals from the district court’s order
granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, its order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

granting summary judgment to the Defendants on the remaining
claims, and its order denying reconsideration.

Many of Luther’s

claims on appeal were never properly presented to the district
court; thus, we do not consider those claims.

Muth v. United

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
As to the properly presented claims, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Luther v. Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A., No. 4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2014,
Apr. 9, 2015, Apr. 21, 2015).
cause.
legal
before

We deny Luther’s motion to show

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2