Rhonda Brown v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999698144-2] Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03454-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999814598]. Mailed to: R. Brown. [15-2377]

Appeal: 15-2377

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2377

RHONDA BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; WILMINGTON FINANCE, INC.; DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Securitized
Trust Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-2; MORGAN
STANLEY MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.; MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1
INC.;
WELLS
FARGO
BANK
N.A.;
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, a/k/a MERS; DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
inclusive,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-03454-PJM)

Submitted:

April 28, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 6, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rhonda Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
James R. Billings-Kang, BLANK
ROME, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Stuart A. Cherry, Gerard J. Gaeng,
ROSENBERG, MARTIN & GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Clinton

Appeal: 15-2377

Doc: 24

Judd McCord,
Appellees.

Filed: 05/06/2016

LOCKE

LORD,

Pg: 2 of 3

LLP,

Los

Angeles,

California,

for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2377

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rhonda Brown appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief in her civil action.
find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and

Accordingly, although we grant leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court.

Brown v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., No.

8:14-cv-03454-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2015; filed Oct. 5, 2015 &
entered Oct. 6, 2015).

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

3