Filed: Mar. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2083 STEPHEN J. CANTERBURY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendant – Appellee, and GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION LLC, d/b/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00059-NKM-BWC) Submitted: March 13, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014 Before NIE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2083 STEPHEN J. CANTERBURY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendant – Appellee, and GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION LLC, d/b/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00059-NKM-BWC) Submitted: March 13, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014 Before NIEM..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2083
STEPHEN J. CANTERBURY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORPORATION,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION LLC, d/b/a GMAC Mortgage
Corporation,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00059-NKM-BWC)
Submitted: March 13, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jason C. Hicks, WOMBLE
CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen J. Canterbury appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment
that he validly exercised his right to rescission of a refinance
credit transaction under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15
U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f (2012), seeking enforcement of rescission,
and seeking alteration of the timing of tender under TILA. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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