Henrietta Okoro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00616-PX Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000057662]. Mailed to: Cyriacus Okoro 7211 Oakley Road Glenn Dale, MD 20769 Henrietta Okoro 7211 Oakley Road Glenn Dale, MD 20769. [16-2274]

Appeal: 16-2274

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2274

HENRIETTA OKORO; CYRIACUS OKORO,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE INC.;
HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK, FSB; M&T BANK; M&T CORPORATION,
Successor by merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB and
owner of M&T Bank; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN.; THE ALBA
LAW GROUP, P.A.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv00616-PX)

Submitted:

March 27, 2017

Decided:

April 7, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henrietta Okoro; Cyriacus Okoro, Appellants Pro Se.
Douglas
Brooks Riley, TREANOR, POPE & HUGHES, PA, Towson, Maryland;
David Edwin Solan, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Rockville, Maryland;
Alvin Frederick, Lauren Elizabeth Marini, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC,
Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-2274

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-2274

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/07/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Henrietta

Okoro

and

Cyriacus

Okoro

court’s order dismissing their complaint.
record and find no reversible error.
substantially

for

the

reasons

stated

appeal

the

district

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm
by

the

district

court.

Okoro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:16-cv-00616-PX (D. Md.
filed Oct. 6, 2016 & entered Oct. 7, 2016).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3