Brenda Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 20-1426 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1426 BRENDA COLEMAN GILLIS, Debtor - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; MERS AND WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, d/b/a America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, NA; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF11 Mortgage Pass Through Certificate-Series 2006, FFII; THE LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL I. WHITE PC, (Specialized Loan Servicing LLC); WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, (Wells Fargo & MERS); ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES; JULIE ANN EVASCO, Esq.; SARA TUSSEY, Esq.; KAREN E.M. PERRY, Esq.; SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP & PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; LENARD TEGNACO, Esq.; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, As servicing agent for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF11 Mortgage Pass Through Certificate-Series 2006, FFII; MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Appellees, and SUZANNE E. WADE; JOHN P. FITZGERALD, III, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00097-JAG) Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 28, 2020 Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda Coleman Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey L. Tarkenton, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Brenda Coleman Gillis appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:20-cv-00097-JAG (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020). We deny Gillis’ motion for a temporary restraining order/stay pending appeal. 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 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.