Nathaniel Costley, Sr. v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1676
    NATHANIEL M. COSTLEY, SR., The Estate of Mary Jane Costley; THE
    ESTATE OF MARY JANE COSTLEY,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,
    Individually and as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP;
    GREEN TREE LENDING; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    COUNTY WIDE HOME LOAN,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-02488-ELH)
    Submitted: November 29, 2018                               Decided: December 3, 2018
    Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Melissa O. Martinez, MCGUIREWOODS,
    LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Henry Falkner Reichner, REED SMITH, LLP, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr., personally and on behalf of the Estate of Mary Jane
    Costley, appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the
    Defendants in his action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 
    15 U.S.C. §§ 1601
    -1667f (2012), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 
    15 U.S.C. §§ 1692
    –
    1692p (2012), as well as claims of fraud, breach of contract, and conversion in
    connection with loans extended to his grandmother in 2006 and 2007, and denying his
    motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Costley v. Bank of
    Am., N.A., No. 1:13-cv-02488-ELH (D. Md. May 9, 2017, Nov. 20, 2017, & May 18,
    2018). 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1676

Filed Date: 12/3/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/3/2018