Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley; Samuel T. Whatley, Ii; Pacita D. Whatley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.a.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1004
REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II;
PACITA D. WHATLEY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (2:23-cv-02015-SAL)
Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024
Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley, II, and Pacita D. Whatley, Appellants Pro Se.
William Joseph Farley, III, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley II, and Pacita D. Whatley
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing without prejudice* the Whatleys’ action alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1681x; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1692 to 1692p; and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Whatley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:23-cv-02015-SAL (D.S.C. Dec. 13,
2023). 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
* The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final order because the court
dismissed the complaint “without granting leave to amend.” Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790,
791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

-- 2 of 2 --