Marcus Davis v. Universal American Mortgage Co, No. 18-1237 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1237 MARCUS DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the registered holders of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-ASAP2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-03110-MJG) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Alexander Nader, MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint challenging a completed judicial foreclosure. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Davis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”); see also Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Failure of a party in its opening brief to challenge an alternate ground for a district court’s ruling waives that challenge.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 2