John Unthank v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1742
JOHN R. UNTHANK; JACKIE D. UNTHANK,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST, 2010
H1,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00100-JFM)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John R. Unthank, Jackie D. Unthank, Appellants Pro Se. Glenn
Cline, Robert A. Scott, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John and Jackie Unthank appeal the district court’s
judgment dismissing their diversity action for failure to state
a claim and denying their motion to reinstate their case and
amend their complaint. On appeal, the Unthanks do not challenge
the district court’s conclusion that their complaint was
properly dismissed for failure to state a claim because their
claims rested on an invalid legal theory. See Edwards v. City
of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding
that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived); 4th
Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in
informal brief). Rather, the Unthanks argue only that the
district court erred in dismissing their pro se complaint
without advising them of their right to amend the complaint or
providing them an opportunity to do so. We have reviewed the
record in this case and find no reversible error on the grounds
asserted. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 756-57 (7th Cir.
2011) (addressing court’s obligation to advise pro se plaintiff
regarding amendment of complaint); Francis v. Giacomelli, 588
F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in
denial of request to amend when litigants provided no proposed
amendment); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 428 (4th Cir. 2006)
(finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion to amend
when amendment would be futile). Accordingly, we affirm the
2
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
3