Walter Ferguson v. Option One Mortgage Corporation, No. 12-2248 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2248 WALTER FERGUSON; CHARLENE FERGUSON, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, now known as Sand Canyon Corporation; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INCORPORATED, servicing agent for U.S. Bank, NA; U.S. BANK, N.A., trustee for STRUCTURED ASSET MANAGEMENT SECURITIES CORPORATION; STRUCTURED ASSET MANAGEMENT SECURITIES CORPORATION; AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, as signatory for MORTGAGE ASSET PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-BC6; MORTGAGE ASSET PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-BC6, an asset-backed securitized mortgage pool; SHAPIRO AND INGLE, LLP; ANDREW HAYES, trustee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00670-CCE-LPA) Submitted: February 25, 2013 Decided: March 12, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Ferguson, Charlene Ferguson, Appellants Pro Se. Brett Michael Shockley, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Megan E. Miller, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jason Kenneth Purser, SHAPIRO & INGLE LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Walter and Charlene Ferguson appeal the district court s order dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). the record and find no reversible error. for the Option reasons One stated Mtg. Corp., Sept. 25, 2012). facts and materials legal before by the No. district We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm court. Ferguson 1:11-cv-00670-CCE-LPA v. (M.D.N.C. We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this 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.