Curtis Steele v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1873
CURTIS STEELE; YOLANDA HARRINGTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CAPITAL ONE HOME LOANS, LLC; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; US BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee;
HSBC HOME EQUITY LOAN CORPORATION I; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00704-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: February 18, 2015 Decided: March 10, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis
Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Donald Richard Pocock, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss their civil complaint and the magistrate judge’s order
denying their motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We
affirm.
First, after a thorough review with an eye toward the
liberal reading afforded their filings, see Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we conclude that the Appellants have
asserted no error on appeal aside from the denial of their
motion for leave to amend. Any discussion concerning the
dismissal of the original complaint in Appellants’ informal
brief arises only incidentally, as Appellants assert that
dismissal of their case was in error only because they were
denied leave to amend their complaint. Moreover, Appellants
abandoned their original complaint below after conceding that it
did not properly present their claims. We therefore decline to
review the district court’s order dismissing Appellants’
complaint, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and in so doing, we have
“focus[ed] . . . on discerning the expressed intent of the [pro
se] litigant.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 811 (4th Cir.
2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1294 (2014).
Second, we conclude that Appellants have forfeited
appellate review of the magistrate judge’s denial of their
2
motion to amend their complaint. The timely filing of
objections to a magistrate judge’s order in a nondispositive
matter is necessary to preserve appellate review of that order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274 (4th
Cir. 2011). Appellants have forfeited appellate review by
failing to file objections. Accordingly, we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm.
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