Court Opinion

ID: 9895016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:42.0365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.075000
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1637      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1637

        OLIVER COLEMAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BANK OF AMERICA; BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA
        HEAD QUARTER CORPORATION; NEAL J. MARKOWITZ, Esq.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03189-DLB)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Oliver R. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa O. Martinez, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
        Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1637      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Oliver Coleman appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to

        dismiss his civil complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 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. Coleman v.

        Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:22-cv-03189-DLB (D. Md., May 9, 2023, and June 1, 2023). 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