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


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1247 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1247 DR.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?