Marcus Davis v. Universal American Mortgage Co ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1237
MARCUS DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC; HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of ACE
Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the registered holders of ACE
Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-ASAP2, Asset Backed
Pass-Through Certificates; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-03110-MJG)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Alexander Nader, MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD,
PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
challenging a completed judicial foreclosure. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ informal
brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Davis has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our
review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”); see also Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785
F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Failure of a party in its opening brief to challenge an
alternate ground for a district court’s ruling waives that challenge.” (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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