Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0502-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Janice Wolk GRENADIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC; Howard N. Bierman; Equity Trustees, LLC; Mark R. Galbraith; Wells Fargo; Bank of America, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities, Defendants-Appellees. Janice Wolk Grenadier, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BWW Law Group, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC; Howard N. Bierman; Equity Trustees, LLC; Mark R. Galbraith; Wells Fargo; Bank of America, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Bank of America, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A., Defendant.
    No. 16-1048, No. 16-1088
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 31, 2016
    Decided: September 13, 2016
    Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary Catherine Zinsner, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Robert Ryan Michael, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court’s orders denying her motions for a writ of error and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB, 2015 WL 11111067 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2015; Dec. 23, 2015). 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