
    M. Nawaz RAJA; Neelum Nawaz Raja, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MERSCORP INC., MERS-1, MERS-2, & MERS-3; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Lender Processing Services, Inc., (“LPS”); Docx LLC, “Docx”; LPS Default Solutions, Inc.; Indy Mac Bank, FSB, now known as One West Bank FSB; Indy Mac Mortgage Services; Indy Mac MBS Inc.; Indy Mac ABS Inc.; Lehman Brothers, Inc.; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; Deutsche BANK Ag, “DBAG”; Deutsche Bank Securities Incorporated, “DBSI”; Indy Mac Indx 2006-AR8; Surety Trustee, LLC; McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC; Beiramee & Cohen P.C., now known as Beiramee Law Group, P.C.; DOES, 150, et al, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1719.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2014.
    Mohammad Nawaz Raja, Neelum Na-waz Raja, Appellants Pro Se. Billy Bernard Ruhling, II, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Ryan Christopher Day, LeClair Ryan, PC, Alexandria, Virginia; Fred O. Goldberg, Berger Sing-erman LLP, Miami, Florida; Minodora Daniela Vancea, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Arlington, Virginia; Vernon Anthony Andrew Cassin, III, David A. Super, Baker Botts, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ellery Johannessen, Abby Kelley Moynihan, McCabe Weisberg & Conway, LLC, Laurel, Maryland; Alexander Richard Green, McGinnis Wutscher Beiramee, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mohammad Nawaz Raja and Neelum Nawaz Raja appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice their civil action challenging the legality of a foreclosure proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Raja v. MERSCORP Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00944-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. June 17, 2014). We deny Rajas’ motion to correct the record on appeal and 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.  