Bobby Collier v. Mortgage Electronic

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999680838-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00480-CCE-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999722029]. Mailed to: Bobby Collier. [15-2165]

Appeal: 15-2165

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2165

BOBBY G. COLLIER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., TRUSTEE
SERVICES; THE HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, f/k/a Hutchens, Senter,
Kellam, & Pettit,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00480-CCE-JEP)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby G. Collier, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Ashley Muckenfuss,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Claire Louise
Collins, Hilton Terry Hutchens, Jr., HUTCHENS, SENTER, KELLAM &
PETIT, PA, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2165

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Bobby
dismissing

G.
his

jurisdiction.
raised

in

Collier

the

civil

appeals
action

the
for

district
lack

court’s

of

subject

order
matter

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
Appellant’s

brief.

See

4th

Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because Collier’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
for

the

district

court’s

disposition,

appellate review of the court’s order.

Collier

has

forfeited

Accordingly, although we

grant Collier’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm
the district court’s judgment.

We 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

2