Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Celeste Wenegieme v. Jeffrey Nadel, 15-1525 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1525 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1525 CELESTE WENEGIEME; CELESTINE WENEGIEME, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JEFFREY NADEL; MERS; ARCH BAY; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cv-02543-GLR) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015 Before WIL
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1525 CELESTE WENEGIEME; CELESTINE WENEGIEME, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JEFFREY NADEL; MERS; ARCH BAY; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cv-02543-GLR) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Celeste Wenegieme, Celestine Wenegieme, Appellants Pro Se. Scott Elliot Nadel, LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY NADEL, Calverton, Maryland; Mark David Meyer, ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Celeste Wenegieme and Celestine Wenegieme appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wenegieme v. Nadel, No. 1:14-cv-02543-GLR (D. Md. filed Apr. 13, 2015 & entered Apr. 14, 2015). 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
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