Janice Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999703421]. Mailed to: Janice Grenadier. [15-1751]

Appeal: 15-1751

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1751

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood,
LLC; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC; MARK R.
GALBRAITH; WELLS FARGO; BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank
N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in
their
Official
and
Personal
Capacities;
OCWEN
LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official
and Personal Capacities,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A.,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

November 20, 2015

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

and

HAMILTON,

Appeal: 15-1751

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ryan Michael,
BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary
Catherine
Zinsner,
TROUTMAN
SANDERS
LLP,
Tysons
Corner,
Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons
Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1751

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Janice

Grenadier

appeals

the

district

denying her various post-judgment motions.
record and find no reversible error.

court’s

orders

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Grenadier v. BWW Law

Group, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. June 15 & 29,
2015).
legal
before

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

3