Curtis Steele v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC, No. 14-1873 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1873 CURTIS STEELE; YOLANDA HARRINGTON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CAPITAL ONE HOME LOANS, LLC; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; US BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee; HSBC HOME EQUITY LOAN CORPORATION I; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00704-RJC-DSC) Submitted: February 18, 2015 Decided: March 10, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Donald Richard Pocock, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Steele and Yolanda Harrington appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss their civil complaint and the magistrate judge’s order denying their motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We affirm. First, after a thorough review with an eye toward the liberal reading afforded their filings, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we conclude that the Appellants have asserted motion no for dismissal brief error on of the arises aside to leave appeal amend. Any original only from discussion complaint incidentally, the as in denial of their concerning Appellants’ Appellants the informal assert that dismissal of their case was in error only because they were denied leave to amend their complaint. Moreover, Appellants abandoned their original complaint below after conceding that it did not properly present their claims. We therefore decline to review dismissing the district court’s order Appellants’ complaint, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and in so doing, we have “focus[ed] . . . on discerning the expressed intent of the [pro se] litigant.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 811 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1294 (2014). Second, appellate we review conclude of the that Appellants magistrate 2 judge’s have denial forfeited of their motion to amend their complaint. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s order in a nondispositive matter is necessary to preserve appellate review of that order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274 (4th Cir. 2011). failing to Appellants file have objections. forfeited appellate Accordingly, we grant review by leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 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.
