Terry Quattleaum v. Bank of America, N.A.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-01711-TDC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000136999]. Mailed to: Terry D. Quattlebaum Apartment 101 6970 Hanover Parkway Greenbelt, MD 20770 Emily Michele Patterson. [17-1327]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1327 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1327 TERRY D. QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; RICHARD G. REESE, JR., Resident, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-01711-TDC) Submitted: August 1, 2017 Decided: August 15, 2017 Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry D. Quattlebaum, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Robert Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Emily Michele Patterson, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1327 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/15/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Terry D. Quattlebaum filed this action—his second—asserting several claims arising out of the sale of his mortgage and foreclosure on his home. The Defendants moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds. Quattlebaum sought to amend his complaint, but the district court denied the motions to amend and dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata. Quattlebaum appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend his complaint as futile. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to amend on futility grounds. United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014). As the district court concluded, res judicata would bar litigation of the claims Quattlebaum sought to add. See Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing elements of res judicata). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling. 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?