Filed: Aug. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1426 JOHN DELULLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00660-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John DeLullo, Appellant Pro Se. Jason L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1426 JOHN DELULLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00660-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John DeLullo, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Le..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1426 JOHN DELULLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00660-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John DeLullo, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Lee Hamlin, GLASSER & GLASSER, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John DeLullo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. DeLullo v. Bank of Am., No. 2:11- cv-00660-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2012). 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
