is posted on the property and mailed to the debtor in accordance with Md. Rule 14-209, regardless of whether it yet was received. See Md. Rule 14-209(b). Plaintiff acknowledges that he was served and that an affidavit of service was filed. Am. Compl. ¶ 17. The affidavit states that notice was posted on May 27, 2012 and sent by certified mail on May 29, 2012. Id. In neither his Amended Complaint nor his Opposition to SBA’s Motion to Dismiss does Plaintiff challenge the sufficiency of the affidavit or of service of the foreclosure complaint. Therefore, service was complete on May 29, 2012, more than one.year before Plaintiff commenced this action, without regard to whether Plaintiff had received the notice yet. See Md. Rule 14-209(b); Dow v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 491, 497 (D.Md.2002) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Plaintiffs FDCPA claim must be
holding that service was presumed valid where the defendant did not demonstrate a rule violation even where the affidavit contained a technical error holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error