Skip to main content

JAIGOBIN v. James E. Clarke, et al, Substitute Trustees, Defendants. (2020)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Leonard JAIGOBIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A.; Chase Bank, Defendants - Appellees, James E. Clarke, et al, Substitute Trustees, Defendants.

No. 19-2116

Decided: March 16, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Reuben B. Collins, II, R. B. COLLINS LAW, LLC, Waldorf, Maryland, for Appellant. Mary S. Diemer, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Leonard Jaigobin appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action against Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank for failure to state a claim. In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Jaigobin requested leave to amend certain claims “if the [district] court determine[d] that the claims were not alleged with adequate sufficiency.” (J.A. 105; see J.A. 104).* On appeal, Jaigobin argues that the court erred in denying his request for leave to amend his complaint. “Where, as here, the plaintiff fails to formally move to amend and fails to provide the district court with any proposed amended complaint or other indication of the amendments he wishes to make, the district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.” Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.



FOOTNOTE.   “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard