Tiemoko Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 12-2230 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2230 TIEMOKO COULIBALY, Dr.; FATOU GAYE-COULIBALY, Dr., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; FANNIE MAE; LONG & FOSTER REAL ESTATE, INC.; NRT-MID-ATLANTIC TITLE SERVICE, LLC, now known as Mid-Atlantic Settlement Services LLC; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE; FAACS; GUARDIAN FUNDING; INTEGRATED ASSET SERVICES; SIMCOX AND BARCLAY, LLP; JOHN AND JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:10-cv-03517-DKC) Submitted: March 29, 2013 Decided: May 1, 2013 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tiemoko Coulibaly, Fatou Gaye-Coulibaly, Appellants Pro Se. Chad King, John Sears Simcox, SIMCOX & BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland; Timothy Guy Casey, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY G. CASEY, PA, Rockville, Maryland; Sarah F. Lacey, Kimberly Anne Manuelides, Indira Kavita Sharma, SAUL EWING, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Brent M. Ahalt, Jennifer Anne Sherburne, MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & WALKER, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland; Thomas Althauser, Seth Philip Kleiner, ECCLESTON & WOLF PC, Hanover Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Dr. appeal the Tiemoko district Coulibaly court s and orders Dr. Fatou granting Gaye-Coulibaly the motions to dismiss their claims filed by Defendants other than JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ( Chase ), granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss filed by Chase, denying their motions for recusal and reconsideration, and granting summary judgment in their civil action. Chase s motion for We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the court. reasons stated by the district Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:10-cv-03517-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 7, 2012; Dec. 28, 2011; Dec. 12, 2011; Sept. 16, 2011 & Aug. 8, 2011). dispense We deny Chase s motion to strike the informal brief and with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal 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.