Summary
affirming the use of these Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the standard for evaluating a request for a rehearing under Rule 8022
Summary of this case from Davis v. Fortune Inv. Enter.Opinion
No. 20-1047
05-28-2020
BRENDA COLEMAN GILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 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; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; THE LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL I. WHITE PC; THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS MERS, INC., Defendants - Appellees.
Brenda Coleman Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey L. Tarkenton, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Washington, D.C.; James Guillot, Jr., SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00875-MHL) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.; James Guillot, Jr., SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Brenda Coleman Gillis appeals the district court's order summarily affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying her motions for default judgment. 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 Home Mortgage, No. 3:19-cv-00875-MHL (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2019). In light of this disposition, we deny Gillis' motion for 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