Dr. Tiemoko Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to seal [999784304-2]; denying Motion to transfer [999782476-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03276-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999864750]. Mailed to: Fatou Gaye-Coulibaly 2013 Grace Church Road Silver Spring, MD 20910. [16-1247]

Appeal: 16-1247

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1247

DR. TIEMOKO COULIBALY; DR. FATOU GAYE-COULIBALY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEBORAH
K. CHASANOW, Judge; CHARLES DAY, Magistrate Judge; THEODORE
D. CHUANG, Judge; ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.; FANNIE
MAE; NRT-MID-ATLANTIC TITLE SERVICE, LLC; LONG & FOSTER REAL
ESTATE INC.; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE; FAACS; GUARDIAN FUNDING;
INTEGRATED ASSET SERVICES; SIMCOX AND BARCLAY, LLP,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-03276-GLR)

Submitted:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiemoko Coulibaly, Fatou Gaye-Coulibaly, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1247

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tiemoko

Coulibaly

and

Fatou

Gaye-Coulibaly

appeal

the

district court’s order dismissing their civil action as barred
by res judicata and immunity and for failure to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (2012).

On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the Appellants’ brief.
Cir.

R.

challenge

34(b).

Because

with

specific

Appellants’
argument

the

informal
bases

brief

for

See 4th
does

the

not

district

court’s disposition, Appellants have forfeited appellate review
of the court’s order.
423,

430

n.4

(4th

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d

Cir.

2004).

district court’s judgment.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

We grant Appellants’ motion to seal

medical documentation and deny the motion for transfer of venue.
We dispense

with

contentions

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