Fred Boddie, III v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, No. 17-1499 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1499 FRED BODDIE, III; ROZLYN BODDIE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING; BANA LP, LLC, f/k/a Countrywide LP, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-01659-RWT) Submitted: February 20, 2018 Decided: March 2, 2018 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Sukari Hardnett, LAW OFFICE OF C. SUKARI HARDNETT, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellants. David E. Hart, MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER, P.C., Southfield, Michigan; Craig R. Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fred Boddie, III and Rozlyn Boddie appeal the district court’s order dismissing their claims pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 to 1692p (2012); the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-101 to 13-501 (LexisNexis 2013 & Supp. 2017); and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in open court on March 15, 2017. * Boddie v. Shellpoint Morgt. Servicing, No. 8:16-cv-01659-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Because Appellants do not challenge in their opening brief the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their claims against Bana LP, LLC, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Appellants have waived appellate review of that portion of the district court’s reasoning. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating that argument not raised in opening brief is considered waived). 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.