Dolores L. CHIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for Structural Asset Securities Corporation Trust 2005-WF3; U.S. National Bank Association; Wells Fargo Bank NA, exclusive and inclusive of its subsidiaries including: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Premier Asset Services, Wells Fargo Asset Corporation; Richard A. Smissen; Michael V. Smissen; Kathryn Smissen Wyn; Scott M. Wheatley, as an individual and as the CEO of Jabez Mortgage Group, LLC, Executive Settlement Services, Wheatley Law Firm, TitleSolve; LA-Z-BOY, Inc.; Samuel I. White; J. Does 1-50, XXXCorporations 1-50, Defendants-Appellees

Dolores L. CHIA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for Structural Asset Securities Corporation Trust 2005-WF3; U.S. National Bank Association; Wells Fargo Bank NA, exclusive and inclusive of its subsidiaries including: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Premier Asset Services, Wells Fargo Asset Corporation; Richard A. Smissen; Michael V. Smissen; Kathryn Smissen Wyn; Scott M. Wheatley, as an individual and as the CEO of Jabez Mortgage Group, LLC, Executive Settlement Services, Wheatley Law Firm, TitleSolve; LA-Z-BOY, Inc.; Samuel I. White; J. Does 1-50, XXXCorporations 1-50, Defendants—Appellees. No. 09-2018. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: March 16, 2010. Decided: March 19, 2010. Dolores L. Chia, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dolores L. Chia appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to amend her complaint and determining that, following her discharge in bankruptcy, she lacked standing to bring claims against Wells Fargo Bank, NA, arising out of the refinance of her mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure sale of her home. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Chia’s motion for leave to file an amended reply brief, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chia v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. 1:09-cv-00670-LMB-TRJ (E.D. Va. Aug. 3 & 5, 2009). 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.