Reginald Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00233-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948089].. [16-1308]

Appeal: 16-1308

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1308

REGINALD JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., d/b/a America’s Servicing Company,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:16-cv-00233-RWT)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jon D. Pels, THE PELS LAW FIRM LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellant.
Russell J. Pope, Justin E. Fine, TREANOR POPE &
HUGHES, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1308

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reginald

Jones

appeals

the

district

court’s

dismissing his complaint as barred by res judicata.

order

On appeal,

Jones does not challenge this finding; instead, he argues the
merits of his underlying claim.
An appellant must present his “contentions and the reasons
for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of
record

on

which

28(a)(8)(A).
this

rule

abandonment

the

appellant

relies.”

Fed.

R.

the

App.

P.

“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of
with
of

respect

that

claim

to

a

on

particular

appeal.”

claim

Edwards

triggers

v.

City

of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
Jones has not challenged the district court’s determination
that the doctrine of res judicata bars his claim.

Accordingly,

he has abandoned his claim that the district court erred.

Thus,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Jones

v.

Wells

2016).
legal
before

Fargo,

N.A.,

No.

8:16-cv-00233-RWT

(D.

Md.

Mar.

7,

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

2