Leonard Jaigobin v. U. S. Bank, N.A., No. 19-2116 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2116 LEONARD JAIGOBIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U. S. BANK, N.A.; CHASE BANK, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES E. CLARKE, ET AL, Substitute Trustees, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-01776-DKC) Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 16, 2020 Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reuben B. Collins, II, R. B. COLLINS LAW, LLC, Waldorf, Maryland, for Appellant. Mary S. Diemer, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Leonard Jaigobin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against Defendants U. S. Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank for failure to state a claim. In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Jaigobin requested leave to amend certain claims “if the [district] court determine[d] that the claims were not alleged with adequate sufficiency.” (J.A. 105; see J.A. 104). * On appeal, Jaigobin argues that the court erred in denying his request for leave to amend his complaint. “Where, as here, the plaintiff fails to formally move to amend and fails to provide the district court with any proposed amended complaint or other indication of the amendments he wishes to make, the district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.” Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal alterations and 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 * “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal. 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.