Adrian Ambaras appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Amended Complaint alleging, inter alia, wrongful foreclosure on the basis of a fraudulently assigned security deed. After review, 1 we conclude both of the arguments Ambaras raises on appeal fail, and we therefore affirm.

Ambaras first asserts the assignment of the security deed from Bank of America to BAC Home Loans Servicing was not valid. Ambaras does not have standing to contest the validity of the assignment, however. After the district court’s order was issued, the Georgia Court of Appeals 2 held that a borrower lacks standing to challenge an assignment, as the borrower is not a party to the contract. Montgomery v. Bank of Am., 321 Ga.App. 343, 740 S.E.2d 434, 437-38 (2013).

Second, Ambaras contends the district court should have granted him leave to amend his Amended Complaint so he could plead fraudulent assignment with sufficient particularity. Ambaras, who has had counsel throughout this litigation, never requested such leave from the district court. It is well-settled law in this Circuit that “[a] district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.” Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc).

Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ambarus’s Amended Complaint.

AFFIRMED.