Filed: Oct. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1410 MARTINA SIMPKINS; ANTHONY J. SIMPKINS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INCORPORATED; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00144-LO-IDD) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decid
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1410 MARTINA SIMPKINS; ANTHONY J. SIMPKINS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INCORPORATED; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00144-LO-IDD) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decide..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1410 MARTINA SIMPKINS; ANTHONY J. SIMPKINS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INCORPORATED; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00144-LO-IDD) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018 Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martina Simpkins, Anthony J. Simpkins, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas Collier Mugavero, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs Martina Simpkins and Anthony J. Simpkins appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying relief on their complaint asserting claims for breach of contract. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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