Case Name: Shirley STEWART; Larry Stewart, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HSBC BANK USA; MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Incorporated; Delta Funding Corporation, d/b/a Fidelity Mortgage; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Nectar Projects, Incorporated; Law Offices of Shapiro & Brunson, LLP; Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-18
Citations: 407 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 10-2133
Parties: Shirley STEWART; Larry Stewart, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. HSBC BANK USA; MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Incorporated; Delta Funding Corporation, d/b/a Fidelity Mortgage; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Nectar Projects, Incorporated; Law Offices of Shapiro & Brunson, LLP; Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 698–698

Head Matter:
Shirley STEWART; Larry Stewart, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. HSBC BANK USA; MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Incorporated; Delta Funding Corporation, d/b/a Fidelity Mortgage; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Nectar Projects, Incorporated; Law Offices of Shapiro & Brunson, LLP; Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-2133.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 18, 2011.
Shirley Stewart, Larry Stewart, Appellants Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shirley and Larry Stewart appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. Rules Civ. P. 8 and 9. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stewart v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 3:10-cv-00586-RLW, 2010 WL 3522087 (E.D.Va. Sept. 3, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.