Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0117-01.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

Gladstone A. DAINTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1852
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 28, 2017
    Decided: January 9, 2018
    
      Jason A. Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Virginia W. Barnhart, Sarah E. Meyer, TREANOR POPE & HUGHES, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gladstone A. Dainty appeals the district court’s orders granting Wells Fargo Bank’s motion to dismiss and denying Dainty’s motion for reconsideration. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint as true and “drawing all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiffs] favor.” Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc., 851 F.3d 315, 319 (4th Cir. 2017). We review the denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (2011) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dainty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:16-cv-02755-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2017; July 7, 2017). 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