Filed: Mar. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1013 EDWIN C. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-02400-JFM) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin C. Coleman, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1013 EDWIN C. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-02400-JFM) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin C. Coleman, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1013
EDWIN C. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02400-JFM)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin C. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Grasis, RATHBUN &
GOLDBERG, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edwin C. Coleman appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim and
denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the court’s order of dismissal for the reasons stated
by the district court. Coleman v. Residential Credit Solutions,
No. 1:13-cv-02400-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2013). Further, we
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Aikens
v. Ingram,
652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (stating
standard of review). We grant Coleman leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. 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