Griffith-Fenton v. Chase Home Finance ( 2013 )

12-3357
Griffith-Fenton v. Chase Home Finance
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of August, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Beverley Griffith-Fenton,
14
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 v. 12-3357
18
19 MERS, et al.,
20
21 Defendants,
22
23 Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al.,
24
25 Defendants-Appellees.
26 _____________________________________
27
28 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Beverley Griffith-Fenton,
29 pro se, Middletown, NY.
30
31 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Cynthia Ann Augello, Esq.,
32 Cullen and Dykman, LLP,
33 Garden City, NY.
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
2 Court for the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
4 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
5 AFFIRMED.
6 Appellant Beverley Griffith-Fenton, pro se, appeals
7 from a final judgment dismissing her complaint alleging
8 violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et
9 seq.; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C.
10 § 2601 et seq.; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
11 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; the Home Affordable Modification
12 Program, and various state laws, pursuant to Federal Rule of
13 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
14 for failure to state a claim. We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
16 history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
17 We review de novo a district court decision dismissing
18 a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(e)(2). See
19 Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P., 634 F.3d 706, 715 (2d Cir.
20 2011); Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001).
21 After an independent review of the record and relevant case
22 law, we affirm for substantially the same reasons
2
1 articulated by the district court judge in his well-reasoned
2 decision entered May 30, 2012.
3 We have considered all of Appellant’s remaining
4 arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly,
5 we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
3