Walter Ferguson v. Option One Mortgage Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Walter Ferguson v. Option One Mortgage Corporation

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2248

WALTER FERGUSON; CHARLENE FERGUSON,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, now known as Sand Canyon Corporation; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INCORPORATED, servicing agent for U.S. Bank, NA; U.S. BANK, N.A., trustee for STRUCTURED ASSET MANAGEMENT SECURITIES CORPORATION; STRUCTURED ASSET MANAGEMENT SECURITIES CORPORATION; AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, as signatory for MORTGAGE ASSET PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-BC6; MORTGAGE ASSET PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-BC6, an asset-backed securitized mortgage pool; SHAPIRO AND INGLE, LLP; ANDREW HAYES, trustee,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00670-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: February 25, 2013 Decided: March 12, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Ferguson, Charlene Ferguson, Appellants Pro Se. Brett Michael Shockley, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Megan E. Miller, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jason Kenneth Purser, SHAPIRO & INGLE LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Walter and Charlene Ferguson appeal the district

court’s order dismissing their complaint for failure to state a

claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Ferguson v.

Option One Mtg. Corp., No. 1:11-cv-00670-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.

Sept. 25, 2012). 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished