Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01539/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01539-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Atlantic Law Group, LLC
Appellee
James T. Luther
Appellant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1539

JAMES T. LUTHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James T. Luther, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, 

KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Hunter Wilmer Sims, 

Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1539 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James T. Luther appeals from the district court’s order 

granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, its order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

granting summary judgment to the Defendants on the remaining 

claims, and its order denying reconsideration. Many of Luther’s 

claims on appeal were never properly presented to the district 

court; thus, we do not consider those claims. Muth v. United 

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 

As to the properly presented claims, we have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Luther v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., No. 4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2014,

Apr. 9, 2015, Apr. 21, 2015). We deny Luther’s motion to show 

cause. 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: 15-1539 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 2