Opinion
24-1004
04-02-2024
REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II; PACITA D. WHATLEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley, II, and Pacita D. Whatley, Appellants Pro Se. William Joseph Farley, III, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 28, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (2:23-cv-02015-SAL)
Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley, II, and Pacita D. Whatley, Appellants Pro Se.
William Joseph Farley, III, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley II, and Pacita D. Whatley appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice the Whatleys' action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1681x; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 to 1692p; and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Whatley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:23-cv-02015-SAL (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2023). 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
The district court's dismissal without prejudice is a final order because the court dismissed the complaint "without granting leave to amend." Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).