Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Curreri v. Ameriquest Mortgage, 04-1383 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1383 Visitors: 31
Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1383 CARMEL CURRERI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-227-JFM) Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darre
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1383 CARMEL CURRERI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-227-JFM) Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darren Margolis, BIERER & MARGOLIS, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Mitchell Peiser, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel J. Tobin, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carmel Curreri appeals the district court’s orders granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying Curreri’s motion for reconsideration in his civil action. Curreri alleges the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the Defendant on Curreri’s claims to declare a deed of trust void and for compensatory damages, and on the Defendant’s counterclaim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Curreri v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No. CA-03-227-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 11, 2003; Feb. 9, 2004; filed June 23, 2004 & entered June 24, 2004). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer