Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clotilde Jimenez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 16-1926 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1926 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1926 CLOTILDE C. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00624-CMH-MSN) Submitted: January 10, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Sen
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1926 CLOTILDE C. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00624-CMH-MSN) Submitted: January 10, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clotilde C. Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Montgomery Barnwell, Matthew Douglas Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, Nathan Ira Brown, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Huntington, West Virginia, Sarah Reimers McIntee, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clotilde C. Jimenez appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jimenez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:16-cv-00624-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. filed July 26, 2016; entered July 27, 2016). We grant 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
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