Case Name: John R. UNTHANK; Jackie D. Unthank, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Sequoia Mortgage Trust, 2010 H1, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-03
Citations: 539 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 13-1742
Parties: John R. UNTHANK; Jackie D. Unthank, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Sequoia Mortgage Trust, 2010 H1, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
John R. UNTHANK; Jackie D. Unthank, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Sequoia Mortgage Trust, 2010 H1, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1742.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2013.
John R. Unthank, Jackie D. Unthank, Appellants Pro Se. Glenn Cline, Robert A. Scott, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John and Jackie Unthank appeal the district court's judgment dismissing their diversity action for failure to state a claim and denying their motion to reinstate their case and amend their complaint. On appeal, the Unthanks do not challenge the district court's conclusion that their complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim because their claims rested on an invalid legal theory. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999) (concluding that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived); 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief). Rather, the Unthanks argue only that the district court erred in dismissing their pro se complaint without advising them of their right to amend the complaint or providing them an opportunity to do so. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no reversible error on the grounds asserted. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 756-57 (7th Cir.2011) (addressing court's obligation to advise pro se plaintiff regarding amendment of complaint); Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir.2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of request to amend when litigants provided no proposed amendment); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 428 (4th Cir.2006) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion to amend when amendment would be futile). 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.