Curtis Steele v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC , 594 F. App'x 215 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1873
    CURTIS STEELE; YOLANDA HARRINGTON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    CAPITAL ONE HOME LOANS, LLC; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; JP
    MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; US BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee;
    HSBC HOME EQUITY LOAN CORPORATION I; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
    REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00704-RJC-DSC)
    Submitted:   February 18, 2015             Decided:   March 10, 2015
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis
    Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
    Donald Richard Pocock, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP,
    Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington appeal the district
    court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
    dismiss their civil complaint and the magistrate judge’s order
    denying their motion for leave to file an amended complaint.                               We
    affirm.
    First,      after     a     thorough    review         with    an    eye    toward   the
    liberal reading afforded their filings, see Erickson v. Pardus,
    
    551 U.S. 89
    , 94 (2007), we conclude that the Appellants have
    asserted    no     error    on    appeal     aside      from       the   denial    of    their
    motion    for    leave     to     amend.         Any    discussion        concerning      the
    dismissal    of     the    original     complaint           in     Appellants’      informal
    brief     arises    only        incidentally,          as    Appellants         assert    that
    dismissal of their case was in error only because they were
    denied leave to amend their complaint.                             Moreover, Appellants
    abandoned their original complaint below after conceding that it
    did not properly present their claims.                        We therefore decline to
    review     the     district        court’s        order       dismissing         Appellants’
    complaint, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and in so doing, we have
    “focus[ed] . . . on discerning the expressed intent of the [pro
    se] litigant.”        Williams v. Ozmint, 
    716 F.3d 801
    , 811 (4th Cir.
    2013), cert. denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 1294
     (2014).
    Second,        we     conclude        that        Appellants         have     forfeited
    appellate    review        of    the   magistrate           judge’s      denial    of    their
    2
    motion    to    amend    their   complaint.           The    timely        filing   of
    objections to a magistrate judge’s order in a nondispositive
    matter is necessary to preserve appellate review of that order.
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Solis v. Malkani, 
    638 F.3d 269
    , 274 (4th
    Cir.   2011).      Appellants       have       forfeited   appellate       review   by
    failing   to    file    objections.        Accordingly,      we    grant    leave   to
    proceed in forma pauperis and affirm.
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1873

Citation Numbers: 594 F. App'x 215

Filed Date: 3/10/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023