Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Karolina Sorensson v. Ditech Financial LLC, 18-1867 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1867 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1867 KAROLINA SORENSSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC/ GREENTREE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-1871 KAROLINA SORENSSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, formerly d/b/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00067-D; 4:18-cv-00042-D)
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1867 KAROLINA SORENSSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC/ GREENTREE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-1871 KAROLINA SORENSSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, formerly d/b/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00067-D; 4:18-cv-00042-D) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karolina Sorensson, Appellant Pro Se. Marc James Ayers, Birmingham, Alabama, Jonathan Edward Schulz, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Karolina Sorensson appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaints challenging foreclosure proceedings under 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. Sorensson v. Ditech Fin. LLC, Nos. 4:17-cv-00067-D; 4:18-cv-00042-D (E.D.N.C., July 17, 2018). We deny Sorensson’s motion for a restraining order. 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
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