Michael Van v. BAC Home Loan Servicing LP, No. 10-2156 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2156 MICHAEL J. VAN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A. formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP; FANNIE MAE, FNMA; LAW OFFICES OF SHAPIRO & BURSON, LLP; PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.; JOHN M. AHERN, Trustee; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:10-cv-00073-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: January 27, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Van, Appellant Pro Se. Jenelle Marie Dennis, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland; Constantinos George Panagopoulos, Gary Clifford Tepper, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Peter Grasis, RATHBUN & GOLDBERG, PC, Fairfax, Virginia; Lawrence Steven Emmert, SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael granting the J. Van appeals the Defendants motions to Van s civil complaint. reversible error. district dismiss, court s and order dismissing We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Van v. BAC Home Loan Servicing LP, No. 4:10-cv-00073-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2010 & entered Sept. 24, 2010). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.