Leonard Jaigobin v. U. S. Bank, N.A.; Chase Bank

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2116

LEONARD JAIGOBIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

U. S. BANK, N.A.; CHASE BANK,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JAMES E. CLARKE, ET AL, Substitute Trustees,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-01776-DKC)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 16, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reuben B. Collins, II, R. B. COLLINS LAW, LLC, Waldorf, Maryland, for Appellant.
Mary S. Diemer, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellees.

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
Leonard Jaigobin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against
Defendants U. S. Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank for failure to state a claim. In his opposition
to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Jaigobin requested leave to amend certain claims “if the
[district] court determine[d] that the claims were not alleged with adequate sufficiency.”
(J.A. 105; see J.A. 104).
*
On appeal, Jaigobin argues that the court erred in denying his
request for leave to amend his complaint. “Where, as here, the plaintiff fails to formally
move to amend and fails to provide the district court with any proposed amended complaint
or other indication of the amendments he wishes to make, the district court does not abuse
its discretion in denying leave to amend.” Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 114 (4th Cir.
2017) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. 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

*
“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.