Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01370/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1370

MELANIE SMITH; EMANUEL SMITH, et al Mortgage Rescission 

Petitioners and Crime Victims’ Rights Claimants,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON, f/k/a Bank of New York; METLIFE HOME LOANS; 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; HUGH GREEN, The Atlantic Law 

Group, LLC; KRISTINA J. LONGO, & Ober, Kaler, Grimes & 

Shriver; FAYE W. MITCHELL, and the Chesapeake City Circuit 

Court Office Staff,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

TINA MCDANIEL AND NECTAR PROJECTS, INCORPORATED; FIRST 

HORIZON HOME LOAN CORPORATION, (Now Defunct/Expired),

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00495-RGD-LRL)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1370 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Melanie Smith, Emanuel Smith, Appellants Pro Se. Katherine Grace 

Mims Crocker, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Andrew 

Francis Lopez, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Dean L. Robinson, ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC, Leesburg, Virginia; 

E. Jon Steren, OBER KALER GRIMES & SHRIVER, PC, Washington, 

D.C.; David Brandt Oakley, POOLE BROOKE PLUMLEE PC, Virginia 

Beach, Virginia; Adam Michael Carroll, WOLCOTT RIVERS & GATES, 

Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1370 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Melanie and Emanuel Smith appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing their civil case. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because the Smiths’ informal brief does not 

challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, they

have forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

Appeal: 16-1370 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3