Case Name: Gladstone A. DAINTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-09
Citations: 708 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 17-1852
Parties: Gladstone A. DAINTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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