Paul Wright v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 22-2021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2021 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2021

PAUL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:22-cv-00261-JD)

Submitted: December 21, 2023 Decided: January 4, 2024

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2021 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Paul Wright appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Wright’s civil complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

As a pro se litigant, Wright cannot litigate issues regarding a student loan to which

he admits in his complaint he is not a party. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs.,

418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The right to litigate for oneself . . . does not create a

coordinate right to litigate for others.”). The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider

Wright’s claim that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“the VA”) has improperly revoked

his eligibility for future VA guaranteed loans. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7292; First Fam.

Mortg. Corp. of Fl. v. Earnest, 851 F.2d 843, 844-45 (6th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases and

holding “a mortgagor has no statutory basis on which to bring an implied private right of

action seeking to enforce duties against the VA”). Wright’s breach of contract claims are

barred by the three-year statute of limitations that governs such claims under South

Carolina law; despite his assertions to the contrary, the mere fact that the settlement

agreements he signed were notarized does not transform them into sealed instruments. See

S.C. Code Ann. § 26-1-90(A)(4) (1991 & Supp. 2023) (listing “signature witnessing” as

one act notaries public may perform). To the extent the complaint can be liberally

construed to raise claims under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 to 3733 (FCA),

any such claims were subject to dismissal for, among other reasons, failure to state a claim.

See, e.g., United States ex rel. Nicholson v. MedCom Carolinas, Inc., 42 F.4th 185, 193

(4th Cir. 2022) (stating elements of civil FCA claim); id. at 194 (explaining that “because

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2021 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

False Claims Act claims are fraud claims,” they “must be pleaded with particularity” under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)); see also Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019)

(recognizing we may affirm “on any ground apparent on the record”). Finally, Wright’s

claims of procedural error are plainly meritless.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. Wright v. Wells Fargo Bank NA,

No. 6:22-cv-00261-JD (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 2022). 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