Carol Taccino v. Ford Motor Company ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1473 CAROL J. TACCINO; WILLIAM A. TACCINO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR CO.; DIEHL’S FORD SALES, INC.; WEPCO F.C.U.; CHESSIE F.C.U.; BB&T COMPANY; CAPITAL ONE, INC.; NORTHWEST BANCSHARES, INC.; ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC; MARINER FINANCE, LLC, Defendants - Appellees, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant. No. 19-1754 CAROL J. TACCINO; WILLIAM A. TACCINO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.; CAPITAL ONE, INC., Defendants - Appellees, and FORD MOTOR CO.; DIEHL’S FORD SALES, INC.; WEPCO F.C.U.; CHESSIE F.C.U.; BB&T COMPANY; NORTHWEST BANCSHARES, INC.; ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC; MARINER FINANCE, LLC, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00913-GLR) Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 7, 2020 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol J. Taccino, William A. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se. Grant A. Newman, BUSH SEYFERTH & PAIGE PLLC, Troy, Michigan; Gregory Stephen Emrick, Matthew James McCloskey, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael K. Hourigan, FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & BALLEW, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; George Faulkner Ritchie, IV, GORDON FEINBLATT LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Richard Marc Goldberg, Anastasia L. McCusker, SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER, Baltimore, Maryland; Ezra S. Gollogly, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Carol J. Taccino and William A. Taccino appeal the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taccino v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:18-cv-00913-GLR (D. Md. June 14 & Mar. 29, 2019). 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