Nazira Urrego v. Samuel I. White, P.C., No. 20-1097 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1097 NAZIRA URREGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00437-MHL-DJN) Submitted: October 29, 2020 Decided: December 15, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nazira Urrego, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald James Guillot, Jr., SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nazira Urrego appeals from the district court’s order granting the defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing Urrego’s amended complaint, which alleged claims for attempted fraudulent foreclosure and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), Pub. L. No. 103-325, §§ 151-58, 108 Stat. 2190, 2190-98 (1994). We affirm the dismissal of Urrego’s attempted fraudulent foreclosure claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Urrego v. Samuel I. White, P.C., No. 3:17-cv-00437-MHL-DJN (E.D. Va., Dec. 30, 2019). As to Urrego’s claims under TILA and HOEPA, we conclude that Urrego has forfeited appellate review because Urrego’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s dismissal of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. * 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 * We decline to consider the issues and claims that Urrego raises for the first time on appeal. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016). 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.