UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2407
ALLEN J. CUBBAGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor by Merger, Wachovia Bank,
National Association (“Wells Fargo”),
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:11-cv-00046-MFU)
Submitted: September 28, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida,
for Appellant. Mary Catherine Zinsner, S. Mohsin Reza, TROUTMAN
SANDERS, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Michael E. Lacy, Nicholas R.
Klaiber, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Allen J. Cubbage appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his First Amended
Complaint in his civil action for the reasons stated on the
record in open court on November 22, 2011. On appeal Cubbage
raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by
dismissing his defamation claim; and (2) whether the district
court should have afforded him an opportunity to amend his First
Amended Complaint before striking it from the docket. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
Regarding the defamation issue, we find the claim
lacks merit for the reasons stated by the district court.
Cubbage v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 5:11-cv-00046-MFU (W.D. Va.
Nov. 23, 2011). Regarding Cubbage’s second issue, that the
district court should not have dismissed his First Amended
Complaint when an amendment may have cured the alleged defects
therein, we note that Cubbage failed to file a proper motion
seeking to amend his complaint. See Cozzarelli v. Inspire
Pharms. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th Cir. 2008) (observing
that we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion
by declining to grant a motion to amend that was never properly
filed). Thus, this claim also lacks merit. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3