Gail B. Sparrow; Victor H. Sparrow, Iii v. Bank of America, Na

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1960
GAIL B. SPARROW; VICTOR H. SPARROW, III,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC.;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; THE FISHER LAW GROUP, PLLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00388-JFM)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: May 4, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gail B. Sparrow, Victor H. Sparrow, III, Appellants Pro Se.
Craig Robert Haughton, Jessica Erin Morrison, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland; Monica E. Webb, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Jeffrey Barry Fisher, Martin Stuart Goldberg,
FISHER LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gail B. Sparrow and Victor H. Sparrow, III (together,
“Sparrows”), appeal the district court’s orders granting
Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and denying related
motions for judicial notice.* On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the Appellants’ brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because the Sparrows’ informal brief does not
sufficiently challenge the bases for the district court’s
dispositions, the Sparrows arguably have forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. In any event, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
denial of relief. Nor did the district court abuse its
discretion in failing to address the Sparrows’ request for leave
to amend the complaint, which they presented only in a
responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b), 15(a);
* Appellee the Fisher Law Group, PLLC (“Fisher”) has moved
to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Victor Sparrow alone
signed the notice of appeal and Gail Sparrow did not. We deny
the motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2). See Becker v.
Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 766-67 (2001). In so doing, we
conclude that Fisher’s reliance on Picking v. Yates, 288 A.2d
146 (Md. 1972), is misplaced. We deny Fisher’s subsequent
motion to strike a letter filed by Gail Sparrow regarding her
status as a party to the appeal because the letter does not
prejudice Fisher’s rights in any way.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm. We deny the Sparrows’ motions for
judicial notice filed in this court and 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

-- 3 of 3 --