Kathleen Arnold v. Citimortgage, Incorporated, No. 10-1233 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1233 KATHLEEN ARNOLD; TIMOTHY A. COTTEN, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED, Assignee; LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK, F.S.B.; AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC; WELLS FARGO; CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING USA, LLC; STEWART TITLE GROUP, LLC; MARTIN DENNIS; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; RANDA SAMIR AZZAM, Substitute Trustee; DANIEL J. PESACHOWITZ; SAMUEL I. WHITE, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07cv-02617-RWT) Submitted: November 2, 2010 Decided: November 15, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathleen Arnold; Timothy A. Cotten, Appellants Pro Se. Bruce Edward Alexander, David M. Souders, Sandra B. Vipond, WEINER, BRODSKY, SIDMAN & KIDER, PC, Washington, D.C.; Glenn Cline, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Bruce Edward Covahey, Mark S. Devan, COVAHEY, BOOZER, DEVAN & DORE, PA, Towson, Maryland; for Appellees. Martin Dennis, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kathleen Arnold and Timothy A. Cotten appeal the district court s order granting Defendants motions to dismiss their civil action. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing on Defendants motions. Appellants have the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(b). proceeding transcripts on at appeal in forma government pauperis expense in on appeal. While appellants are entitled certain to limited circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006), Arnold and Cotten paid the appellate filing fee and neither application for in forma pauperis status. has filed an By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Arnold and Cotten have waived review of the issues on appeal that depend on the transcript to show error. See Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Keller v. Prince George s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.