MCCLAIN v. NA LLP (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Iris MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, “Wells Fargo”; Timothy Sloan, President & CEO of Wells Fargo Bank, NA; JP Morgan Chase & Company; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; James Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase & Co. & JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA; Bank of New York Mellon; Gerald Hassell, Chairman & CEO of The Bank of New York Mellon; Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company; Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Lloyd Blankfien, CEO & Chairman of Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Kristine D. Brown, Esq.; Gregory N. Britto, Esq.; Robyn A. McQuillen, Esq.; William M. Savage, Esq., Managing Partner of Shapiro & Brown ALT, LLP; Lila Z. Stitely, Esq., Defendants-Appellees, Wells Fargo Company; Wells Fargo & Company, NA; Goldman Sachs; Shapiro Brown & Alt, LLP, Defendants.

No. 18-1388

Decided: October 04, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Iris McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Wood Barnhart, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Bryan Gales, Baltimore, Maryland, Brett Lawrence Messinger, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

Iris McClain appeals the district court's order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. With the parties’ consent, we dismiss the Appellees identified in the joint stipulation. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McClain v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:17-cv-01094-TDC, 2018 WL 1271231 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2018).^* 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. We find no merit to McClain's contentions on appeal that the district court was biased against her and that the court's determinations were tainted by a mistaken view of the facts.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law