John Unthank v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, No. 13-1742 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1742 JOHN R. UNTHANK; JACKIE D. UNTHANK, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; SEQUOIA MORTGAGE H1, ELECTRONIC TRUST, 2010 Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00100-JFM) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John R. Unthank, Jackie D. Unthank, Appellants Pro Se. Glenn Cline, Robert A. Scott, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John and Jackie Unthank appeal the district court s judgment dismissing their diversity action for failure to state a claim and denying their motion to reinstate their case and amend their complaint. On appeal, the Unthanks do not challenge the conclusion district court s that their complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim because their claims rested on an invalid legal theory. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived); 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief). district court Rather, erred in the Unthanks dismissing argue their pro only se that the complaint without advising them of their right to amend the complaint or providing them an opportunity to do so. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no reversible error on the grounds asserted. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 756-57 (7th Cir. 2011) (addressing court s obligation to advise pro se plaintiff regarding amendment of complaint); Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of request to amend when litigants provided no proposed amendment); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 428 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion to amend when amendment would be futile). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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 3

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.