Dana Wilcox v. Rae Davis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Dana Wilcox v. Rae Davis

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1994 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1994

DANA V. WILCOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HONORABLE RAE OLIVER DAVIS, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of H.U.D.; ALANNA MCCARGO, President, Ginnie Mae; STEWART M. SPETTEL, Director, Office of Security Operations; JULIA BRAITHWAITE, Chief Compliance Officer, Bank of New York Mellon; JACQUELINE JOYSTON- BECHAL, Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer, Bank of New York Mellon; ANTHONY R. MANCUSO, Vice President, Bank of New York Mellon,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01240-PTG-JFA)

Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 26, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana V. Wilcox, Appellant Pro Se. Yuri S. Fuchs, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Kathryn Margaret Barber, Juliet B. Clark, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1994 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Dana V. Wilcox appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to

dismiss Wilcox’s claims alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a

to 77aa; the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a to 78rr; and the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970,

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961

to 1968. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Wilcox v. Davis, No. 1:22-cv-01240-PTG-JFA (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2023). 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished