USCA4 Appeal: 25-1612 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1612

BRENDA COLEMAN GILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-FF11, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006-FF11; LOGS LEGAL GROUP LLP, Temecula, California; LOGS LEGAL GROUP LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; LOGS LEGAL GROUP LLP, Manassas, Virginia; WILLIAM SAVAGE; MALCOLM BROOKS SAVAGE, III, Attorney; THOMAS B. HODGES, JR., Attorney; FOUR MILE RUN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND REGISTERED AGENT; EQUITYEXPERT.ORG, LLC; LIQUID GLOBAL COMPANY LLC, Debt Collector; SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING/NEWREZ; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00715-DJN)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1612 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Brenda Coleman Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia; David Tony Long, Jr., BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1612 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Coleman Gillis appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) motion to reconsider the court’s dismissal of her civil complaint without prejudice

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gillis v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr.

Co., No. 3:24-cv-00715-DJN (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2025). 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