Alicia Dennis v. Bank United, No. 11-2106 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2106 ALICIA M. DENNIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK UNITED, Assignee of FDIC as Receiver for Bank United, FSB; BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Defendants Appellees, and STEVEN HAROLD GREENFELD, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee. No. 11-2109 ALICIA M. DENNIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; S. PRINCE AURORA, as Trustee for Aurora Mortgage; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants Appellees, and STEVEN HAROLD GREENFELD, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee. No. 11-2110 ALICIA M. DENNIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA SERVICING, LP, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BAC HOME LOANS Defendants Appellees, and STEVEN HAROLD GREENFELD, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:10-cv-03147-RWT; 8:10-cv-03151-RWT; 8:10-cv-03152RWT; 09-33957 WIL; 10-00303 WIL; 10-00304 WIL; 10-00305 WIL) Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alicia M. Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. John Sears Simcox, SIMCOX & BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland; S. Prince Aurora, Vienna, Virginia, Maryland, for Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In appeals these the consolidated district court s appeals, orders Alicia affirming the M. Dennis bankruptcy court s orders dismissing her complaint filed in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dennis v. Bank United, Dennis v. U.S. Bank, National Assoc., Dennis v. Bank of America NA, Nos. 8:10cv-03147-RWT; 8:10-cv-03151-RWT; 8:10-cv-03152-RWT; 09-33957 WIL; 10-00303 WIL; 10-00304 WIL; 10-00305 WIL (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2011). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
