Timothy Davis v. Universal Composition Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00036-CMH-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000060457].. [16-1775]

Appeal: 16-1775

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/12/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1775

TIMOTHY E. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
UNIVERSAL COMPOSITION SERVICES, LLC; ALTAF U. KHAN,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00036-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 12, 2017

Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard E. Goodman, David Ludwig, DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG, PLLC,
Vienna, Virginia; Roger C. Simmons, Shawn P. Cavenee, Christopher F. deBettencourt,
GORDON & SIMMONS, LLC, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellant. Mary C. Zinsner, S.

Appeal: 16-1775

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/12/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Mohsin Reza, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Allison Melton,
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lisa Hudson Kim, SAMUEL I.
WHITE, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1775

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/12/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Timothy E. Davis appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his amended
complaint in which he raised numerous claims arising out of the foreclosure on his
property. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs,
and find no error in the district court’s dismissal of Davis’ claims. Specifically, we find
no merit to Davis’ claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty or breach of contract under
Virginia law; nor do we find an actionable claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (2012). Therefore we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Davis v. Samuel I. White, P.C., No. 1:16-cv-00036-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. June 10,
2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3