Kathleen Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 12-1423 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1423 KATHLEEN BLICK; HAROLD BLICK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC) Submitted: August 21, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathleen Blick, Harold Blick, Appellants Pro Se. Jason Cameron Hicks, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kathleen and Harold Blick appeal the district court s order granting Defendants Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their action to quiet title in real property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court s rejection of their claim that Defendants lacked standing to foreclose on the property. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2012). claims, we confine Appellants brief. our Turning to the Blicks remaining review to the issues See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). raised in the Because the Blicks fail to challenge the court s resolution of these claims, they have forfeited appellate review of those issues. affirm the court s denial of relief. We therefore 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 2

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.