Case Name: William A. TACCINO; Marlene M. Taccino, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOMEQ SERVICING; Mancini & Associates; U.S. Bank n/a; Morris Schneider Pryor Johnson & Freedman, LLC; G. Douglas Reinhard; Rick Conner; Express Mortgage Financial Services, P.C., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 399 F. App'x 799
Docket Number: No. 10-1260
Parties: William A. TACCINO; Marlene M. Taccino, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOMEQ SERVICING; Mancini & Associates; U.S. Bank n/a; Morris Schneider Pryor Johnson & Freedman, LLC; G. Douglas Reinhard; Rick Conner; Express Mortgage Financial Services, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 799–799

Head Matter:
William A. TACCINO; Marlene M. Taccino, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOMEQ SERVICING; Mancini & Associates; U.S. Bank n/a; Morris Schneider Pryor Johnson & Freedman, LLC; G. Douglas Reinhard; Rick Conner; Express Mortgage Financial Services, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1260.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 26, 2010.
William A. Taccino, Marlene M. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se. Wendy Anne Owens, Law Office of Wendy A. Owens, PC, Savannah, Georgia; Marshall Howard Ross, Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, PLC, Harri-sonburg, Virginia; Jason Patrick Foster, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William A. Taccino and Marlene M. Tac-cino appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taccino v. Homeq Serv., No. 3:08-cv-00185-JPB (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 18, 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.