U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2013

Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 1, 2013 · Davis, Diaz, Motz
526 F. App'x 255

Counsel

Tiemoko Coulibaly, Fatou Gaye-Couli-baly, Appellants pro se. Chad King, John Sears Simcox, Simcox & Barclay, Annapolis, Maryland; Timothy Guy Casey, Law Office of Timothy G. Casey, PA, Rockville, Maryland; Sarah F. Lacey, Kimberly Anne Manuelides, Indira Kavita Sharma, Saul Ewing, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Brent M. Ahalt, Jennifer Anne Sherburne, McNamee, Hosea, Jernigan, Kim, Greenan & Walker, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland; Thomas Althauser, Seth Philip Kleiner, Eccleston & Wolf PC, Hanover Maryland, for Appellees.

Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Cases that cite this one

113 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Tiemoko Coulibaly and Dr. Fatou Gaye-Coulibaly appeal the district court’s orders granting the motions to dismiss their claims filed by Defendants other than JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss filed by Chase, denying their motions for recusal and reconsideration, and granting Chase’s motion for summary judgment in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:10-cv-03517-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 7, 2012; Dec. 28, 2011; Dec. 12, 2011; Sept. 16, 2011 & Aug. 8, 2011). We deny Chase’s motion to strike the informal brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *256this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.