Court Opinion

ID: 9895018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:44.522175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.743479
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2182      Doc: 34         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2182

        MITHUN BANERJEE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; VIVIANA QUISHPE-NARVAEZ; THE
        CORPORATION TRUST, INCORPORATED; TESSA L. FREDERICK;
        JEFFREY P. REILLY; MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P. C., 100 Light Street,
        Baltimore Md 21202; ROSALYN TANG; STEPHEN J. MCAULIFFE, III;
        MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P. C., 11 N Washington St #700, Rockville, MD 20850,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:21-cv-03110-TDC)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2182      Doc: 34         Filed: 11/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mithun Banerjee appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint

        and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.

        Banerjee v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:21-cv-03110-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2022, and Oct. 12,

        2022). We also deny Banerjee’s motion to assign counsel. 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

                                                     2