UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1775
LILLIAN WOODY; FRED WOODY, JR.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, L.P.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-1852
LILLIAN WOODY; FRED WOODY, JR.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, L.P.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00398-D)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lillian Woody and Fred Woody, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. Joseph
Samuel Dowdy, Donald Richard Pocock, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Lillian and Fred Woody (“Appellants”) appeal the
district court’s orders dismissing their statutory and common
law claims against Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A.,
and BAC Home Loans Servicing (“Appellees”). Appellants also
appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a new
trial. We affirm both judgments.
Appellants raised several claims in the district court
invoking the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Home Owners Equity
Protection Act, the Federal Reserve Board’s regulations, and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, among others. On appeal, Appellants
have abandoned the majority of their statutory and common law
claims, arguing that the district court erred in failing to rule
on their claim that Appellees violated North Carolina law by
failing to file a prospectus and registration statement.
However, Appellants failed to raise this claim to any legally
discernable degree in their complaint, and to the extent that
they attempted to elaborate on it in subsequent filings and on
appeal in this court, we conclude that the argument is waived.
Appellants claim that the district court erred in
denying their motion to join additional parties. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Woody v. Bank
of Am. Corp., No. 5:09-cv-00938-D (E.D.N.C., June 9, 2010).
Finally, Appellants claim that the court erred in denying their
3
motion for a new trial. Again, we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. We affirm on that basis. Woody v.
Bank of Am. Corp., No. 5:09-cv-00938-D (E.D.N.C., June 25,
2010).
We therefore affirm the judgments of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4