Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tiffany Noels v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLP, 18-2027 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-2027 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2027 TIFFANY LAGENIA NOELS, on her own behalf, and as general guardian of minor child, J.B., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; SHAPIRO & BROWN LLP; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST; BROCK & SCOTT, LLC, a/k/a Brock & Scott, PLLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03218-GJH) Submitted: Jan
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2027 TIFFANY LAGENIA NOELS, on her own behalf, and as general guardian of minor child, J.B., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; SHAPIRO & BROWN LLP; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST; BROCK & SCOTT, LLC, a/k/a Brock & Scott, PLLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03218-GJH) Submitted: January 31, 2019 Decided: February 21, 2019 Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tiffany Lagenia Noels, Appellant Pro Se. Walter John Buzzetta, Thomas Francis Lucchesi, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas John Gartner, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tiffany Lagenia Noels appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to strike her amended complaint and to dismiss her original complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Noels v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLP, No. 8:17-cv-03218-GJH (D. Md. filed July 30, 2018 & entered July 31, 2018). 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