Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Samuel Shipkovitz v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, 17-2230 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2230 Visitors: 51
Filed: Apr. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2230 SAMUEL SHIPKOVITZ, And Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC.; RICHARD CORDRAY, Director U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Defendants - Appellees, and EVERHOME MORTGAGE, INC.; THOMAS J. CURRY, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency; EDITH RAMIREZ, Chairwoman of Commission U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2230 SAMUEL SHIPKOVITZ, And Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC.; RICHARD CORDRAY, Director U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Defendants - Appellees, and EVERHOME MORTGAGE, INC.; THOMAS J. CURRY, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency; EDITH RAMIREZ, Chairwoman of Commission U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00712-PX) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Shipkovitz, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Shipkovitz appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration, for leave to file a third amended complaint, for recusal, and for an extension of time. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Shipkovitz’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shipkovitz v. Dovenmuehle Mortg., No. 8:16-cv-00712- PX (D. Md. July 31, 2017 & Sept. 21, 2017). 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
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