Case Name: Zurab LEZHAVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as the Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1, Defendants-Appellees, John Doe Investor, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-10
Citations: 459 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 11-10113
Parties: Zurab LEZHAVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as the Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1, Defendants-Appellees, John Doe Investor, Defendant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 812–812

Head Matter:
Zurab LEZHAVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as the Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1, Defendants-Appellees, John Doe Investor, Defendant.
No. 11-10113
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 10, 2012.
John V. Kuruvilla, Kuruvilla Law Firm, PC, Andrew Hollister Schultz, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Russell J. Rogers, James Christopher Fox, II, Thompson Hiñe, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Plaintiff, Zurab Lezhava, appeals following the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. and Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as the Trustee of American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1.
Lezhave contends that the district court erred in granting the Defendants summary judgment on all of his claims. Lezhava's arguments in support of this contention were rejected by the district court in a well-reasoned opinion. We agree with the district court's analysis and conclusions. (Order at Dkt. 97 at 1-20 .) No reversible error has been shown.
Lezhava also contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for leave to amend. We conclude that Lezhava has shown no abuse of discretion in denial of the motion for the reasons stated in the district court's order denying the motion. (Id. at 21-27.)
AFFIRMED.