Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01308/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Jones
Appellant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1308

REGINALD JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., d/b/a America’s Servicing Company,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:16-cv-00233-RWT)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jon D. Pels, THE PELS LAW FIRM LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for 

Appellant. Russell J. Pope, Justin E. Fine, TREANOR POPE & 

HUGHES, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1308 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Reginald Jones appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint as barred by res judicata. On appeal, 

Jones does not challenge this finding; instead, he argues the 

merits of his underlying claim.

An appellant must present his “contentions and the reasons 

for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the 

record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(8)(A). “Failure to comply with the specific dictates of 

this rule with respect to a particular claim triggers 

abandonment of that claim on appeal.” Edwards v. City of 

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). 

Jones has not challenged the district court’s determination 

that the doctrine of res judicata bars his claim. Accordingly, 

he has abandoned his claim that the district court erred. Thus, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones 

v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 8:16-cv-00233-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 7, 

2016). 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: 16-1308 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2