Erick Ruiz v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 13-2318 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2318 ERICK AGUILAR RUIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; NATASHA BARONE, Substitute Trustee; HUTCHENS, SENTER, BRITTON, PA; FLICK MORTGAGE INVESTORS; LINDSEY R. DAVIS, Defendants Appellees, and GMAC BANK, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00272-NCT-JEP) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Erick Aguilar Ruiz, Appellant Pro Se. James Scott Flowers, HUTCHENS, SENTER, KELLAM & PETIT, PA, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Attorney Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Erick Aguilar Ruiz appeals the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation to dismiss Ruiz s civil action, which was based on the foreclosure sale of his home. judge The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant magistrate to judge 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) granting (2012). Defendants The motions to dismiss on various legal grounds and advised Ruiz that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ruiz has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.