Aminata Williams v. 21st Mortgage Corporation ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-1659
    AMINATA M. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    U. S. BANK N.A., Trustee for the RASC 2007-EMX1 Trust; OCWEN LOAN
    SERVICING; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC; JOHN DOES 1
    through 10,
    Defendants.
    No. 17-1534
    AMINATA M. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1 through 10; OCWEN
    LOAN SERVICING; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC; U. S. BANK
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee for the RASC 2007-EMX1 Trust,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Theodore D. Chuang; Paula Xinis, District Judges. (8:16-cv-01210-PX)
    Submitted: November 20, 2017                                Decided: November 30, 2017
    Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles C. Iweanoge, THE IWEANOGES’ FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
    Appellant. Robert H. Hillman, SAMUEL I. WHITE PC, Rockville, Maryland; Brian J.
    Slipakoff, Phillip Chong, DUANE MORRIS LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Aminata Williams appeals from the district court’s
    orders: (1) denying her motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order
    to prevent a foreclosure sale and, (2) dismissing her civil action as barred by res judicata.
    We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the district court’s opinions
    and we find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Williams v. 21st Mortgage Corp., No. 8:16-cv-01210-PX (D. Md. filed May 3,
    2016, and entered May 4, 2016; Mar. 27, 2017). 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: 16-1659

Filed Date: 11/30/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021