Melanie Smith v. First Tennessee Bank National

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00495-RGD-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999914307]. Mailed to: Melanie Smith & Emanuel Smith. [16-1370]

Appeal: 16-1370

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1370

MELANIE SMITH; EMANUEL SMITH, et al Mortgage
Petitioners and Crime Victims’ Rights Claimants,

Rescission

Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, f/k/a Bank of New York; METLIFE HOME LOANS;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; HUGH GREEN, The Atlantic Law
Group, LLC; KRISTINA J. LONGO, & Ober, Kaler, Grimes &
Shriver; FAYE W. MITCHELL, and the Chesapeake City Circuit
Court Office Staff,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
TINA MCDANIEL AND NECTAR PROJECTS, INCORPORATED;
HORIZON HOME LOAN CORPORATION, (Now Defunct/Expired),

FIRST

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00495-RGD-LRL)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1370

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Melanie Smith, Emanuel Smith, Appellants Pro Se. Katherine Grace
Mims Crocker, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Andrew
Francis Lopez, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Dean L. Robinson, ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC, Leesburg, Virginia;
E. Jon Steren, OBER KALER GRIMES & SHRIVER, PC, Washington,
D.C.; David Brandt Oakley, POOLE BROOKE PLUMLEE PC, Virginia
Beach, Virginia; Adam Michael Carroll, WOLCOTT RIVERS & GATES,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1370

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Emanuel

appeal

PER CURIAM:
Melanie

and

Smith

orders dismissing their civil case.

the

district

court’s

On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
Cir. R. 34(b).

See 4th

Because the Smiths’ informal brief does not

challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, they
have

forfeited

Accordingly,
dispense

we

with

contentions

are

appellate
affirm
oral

review

the

district

argument

adequately

of

the
court’s

because

presented

court’s

in

the
the

orders.

judgment.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3