Van v. BAC Home Loan Servicing LP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 27, 2011
• Docket: 10-2156
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2156

MICHAEL J. VAN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A. formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP; FANNIE MAE, FNMA; LAW OFFICES OF SHAPIRO & BURSON, LLP; PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.; JOHN M. AHERN, Trustee; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:10-cv-00073-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: January 27, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Van, Appellant Pro Se. Jenelle Marie Dennis, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland; Constantinos George Panagopoulos, Gary Clifford Tepper, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Peter Grasis, RATHBUN & GOLDBERG, PC, Fairfax, Virginia; Lawrence Steven Emmert, SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Van appeals the district court’s order

granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissing

Van’s civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Van v. BAC Home Loan Servicing LP, No.

4:10-cv-00073-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2010 & entered

Sept. 24, 2010). 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