Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Fourth Circuit

Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

576 F. App'x 132

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 2014

DocketNo. 09-2217

StatusPublished

This text of 576 F. App'x 132 (Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 576 F. App'x 132 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 2009 WL 9119980 (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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 2009 WL 9119980 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 F. App'x 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bah-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca4-2014.