Case Name: Terry D. QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Richard G. Reese, Jr., Resident, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-15
Citations: 695 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: No. 17-1327
Parties: Terry D. QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Richard G. Reese, Jr., Resident, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 59–59

Head Matter:
Terry D. QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Richard G. Reese, Jr., Resident, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1327
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 1, 2017
Decided: August 15, 2017
Terry D. Quattlebaum, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Robert Haughton, MCGUIRE-WOODS, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Emily Michele Patterson, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry D. Quattlebaum filed this action— his second—asserting several claims arising out of the sale of his mortgage and foreclosure on his home. The Defendants moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds. Quattlebaum sought to amend his complaint, but the district court denied the motions to amend and dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata. Quattleb-aum appeals the district court's order denying his motions to amend his complaint as futile. We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion to amend on futility grounds. United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014). As the district court concluded, res judicata would bar litigation of the claims Quattlebaum sought to add. See Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing elements of res judi-cata). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's ruling. 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