Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

405 F. App'x 736
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 22, 2010·No. No. 09-2217·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michelle Johnson Bah and Mountaga Bah appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their civil action, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), in which they sought to prevent foreclosure proceedings against their home. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. 8:08-cv-03429-RWT (D.Md. Sept. 23, 2009). We deny the Appellee’s motion to strike and for sanctions, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 405 F. App'x 736 (4th Cir. 2010).

405 F. App'x 736 (Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.