Case Name: Andrews ACHEAMPONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates 2006-6; Bank of America, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-26
Citations: 531 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 13-1145
Parties: Andrews ACHEAMPONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates 2006-6; Bank of America, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: ROGERS, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 751–751

Head Matter:
Andrews ACHEAMPONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates 2006-6; Bank of America, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1145.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 26, 2013.
BEFORE: ROGERS, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After plaintiff Andrews Acheampong defaulted on his mortgage payments, defendant Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM"), which held an interest in the mortgage, foreclosed on plaintiffs property. Plaintiff brought this action in Michigan state court to invalidate the foreclosure, and defendants removed the case to federal district court. Plaintiff alleged that BNYM lacked standing to foreclose under Michigan law, and that BNYM fraudulently acquired its mortgage interest. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA"), which owned the note secured by the mortgage, denied him a loan modification in violation of Michigan law, and that BANA breached the terms of a trial modification plan it negotiated with plaintiff. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs claims, and the district court granted the motion in a written opinion. Plaintiff timely appealed.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we find no error in the district court's analysis. The reasoning supporting the judgment for defendants was clearly and persuasively articulated by the district court, and accordingly there is no need for a detailed written opinion by this court. Any opinion by us would be duplicative and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated in that court's opinion.
AFFIRMED.