Opinion
19-2271
07-09-2021
NICOLE RENA MCCREA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO; MARK S. DEVAN, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; THOMAS P. DORE, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; BRIAN S. MCNAIR, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; ANGELA NASUTA, Substitute Trustee in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity; DSDJ PROPERTIES, INC.; DANIEL WILSON, in Official Capacity and Personal/Individual Capacity, Defendants - Appellees.
Nicole Rena McCrea, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah E. Meyer, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Alvin Frederick, Lauren Elizabeth Marini, ECCLESTON &WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Richard Basile, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD BASILE, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 1, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02490-RDB)
Nicole Rena McCrea, Appellant Pro Se.
Sarah E. Meyer, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Alvin Frederick, Lauren Elizabeth Marini, ECCLESTON &WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Richard Basile, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD BASILE, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Nicole McCrea appeals the district court's orders dismissing her civil action in which she claimed that Appellees wrongfully denied her a second loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We review de novo a district court's order dismissing a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Lokhova v. Halper, 995 F.3d 134, 141 (4th Cir. 2021), and "review the denial of a motion for reconsideration under the deferential abuse of discretion standard," Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the orders of the district court. 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