Rochell Talley v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [999882896-2]; denying Motion for leave to file [999882896-3] Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00389-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000006355]. Mailed to: Talley. [16-1478]

Appeal: 16-1478

Doc: 35

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1478

ROCHELL TALLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC.; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION; INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; ONE WEST BANK, FSB; BWW
LAW
GROUP,
LLC,
jointly,
severally
and/or
in
the
alternative,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:16-cv-00389-RWT)

Submitted:

January 5, 2017

Decided:

January 19, 2017

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Rochell Talley, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward Win-Teh Chang, BLANK
ROME, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Matthew Daniel Cohen,
BIERMAN GEESING WARD & WOOD, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellees

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1478

Doc: 35

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rochell Talley appeals the district court’s order granting
defendants’
civil

Fed.

action.

R.
In

Civ.
his

P.

12(b)(6)

informal

motions

brief,

Talley

to

dismiss

asserts,

his

inter

alia, that the district court did not respond to his request to
amend his complaint, which was made in his opposition to the
motions to dismiss.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2)

provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend]
when justice so requires,” which we have construed to mean “that
leave

to

amend

a

pleading

should

be

denied

only

when

the

amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has
been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment
would have been futile.”

Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426

(4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because

the

district

court

has

not

ruled

on

the

merits

of

Talley’s request to amend, we vacate the dismissal of Counts X
through XVI and remand for the district court to specifically
address Talley’s request and any response.
With regard to Counts I through IX, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error.

We therefore affirm the

dismissal of those claims for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Talley v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-00389-

RWT (D. Md. Apr. 5, 2016).

We grant Talley’s motion to amend

informal brief, deny his motion for leave to file informal reply
2

Appeal: 16-1478

Doc: 35

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

brief, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

3