Filed: Nov. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1930 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTEE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAGARAJ NAGACHANDRA, et.al, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01171-PJM) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kosmas Nichola
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1930 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTEE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAGARAJ NAGACHANDRA, et.al, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01171-PJM) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kosmas Nicholas..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1930 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTEE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAGARAJ NAGACHANDRA, et.al, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01171-PJM) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kosmas Nicholas Johns, OFFICE OF KOS N. JOHNS, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nagaraj Nagachandra appeals the district court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice after finding the notice of removal improper. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bank of New York Mellon Trustee v. Nagachandra Nagaraj, No. 8:15-cv-01171-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 6, 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
