Chahdad Bolouri v. Bank of America ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-2069
    CHAHDAD C. BOLOURI,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.       as acquirer
    of certain assets and liabilities of Washington        Mutual Bank
    from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,        as Receiver
    for   Washington  Mutual   Bank;   PROFESSIONAL        FORECLOSURE
    CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:10-cv-00225-LO-TCB)
    Submitted:   August 1, 2011                 Decided:   August 11, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher Edwin Brown, BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, PC, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellant. John C. Lynch, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP,
    Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Hubbard, TROUTMAN SANDERS,
    LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Bizhan Beiramee, RATHBUN & GOLDBERG,
    PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Chahdad C. Bolouri appeals the district court’s order
    granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
    his state law claims for declaratory judgment, quiet title, and
    negligence,      and    his     claim    under        the    Fair    Debt      Collection
    Practices    Act,      
    15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692
    -1692p      (West   2009    &   Supp.
    2011).      We   have       reviewed    the       record    and   find    no   reversible
    error.   Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.                            See
    Bolouri v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:10-cv-00225-LO-TCB (E.D.
    Va. August 24, 2010); see also Horvath v. Bank of N.Y., N.A.,
    
    641 F.3d 617
     (4th Cir. 2011).                     We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2069

Filed Date: 8/11/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021