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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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