Nicole McCrea v. Wells Fargo, No. 19-2271 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2271 NICOLE RENA MCCREA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO; MARK S. DEVAN, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; THOMAS P. DORE, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; BRIAN S. MCNAIR, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; ANGELA NASUTA, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; DSDJ PROPERTIES, INC.; DANIEL WILSON, in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02490-RDB) Submitted: June 1, 2021 Decided: July 9, 2021 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicole Rena McCrea , Appellant Pro Se. Sarah E. Meyer, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Alvin Frederick, Lauren Elizabeth Marini, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Richard Basile, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD BASILE, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Nicole McCrea appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action in which she claimed that Appellees wrongfully denied her a second loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Lokhova v. Halper, 995 F.3d 134, 141 (4th Cir. 2021), and “review the denial of a motion for reconsideration under the deferential abuse of discretion standard,” Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the orders of the district court. 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.
