Esther Yates v. U. S. Bank National Association

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1691 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1691

ESTHER M. YATES; WILLIAM R. YATES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for GSR Loan Trust 2006-3F; ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE, & PARTNERS, PLLC; RAS TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-01531-RDA-WEF)

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: April 30, 2026

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Esther M. Yates; William R. Yates, Appellants Pro Se. D. Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1691 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Esther and William Yates (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s orders (a) granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ removed civil action and denying Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the matter to state court; (b) denying Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment; and (c) imposing on Plaintiffs a prefiling injunction. * We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error in the court’s dispositive res judicata analysis, see Providence Hall Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 816 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2016), or abuse of discretion in the court’s analysis related to the prefiling injunction, see Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, (4th Cir. 2004) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Yates v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., No. 1:23-cv-01531-RDA-WEF (E.D.

Va. Sept. 12, 2024; May 16, 2025; filed June 11, 2025 & entered June 12, 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

* In this court, Plaintiffs move to strike Defendants-Appellees’ informal response and for us to take judicial notice of other exhibits. We deny these motions. Plaintiffs also move for leave to amend their informal brief, which we grant.