DocketNumber： 03-1993
Citation Numbers： 89 F. App'x 412
Judges： Luttig, Duncan, Hamilton
Filed Date： 3/15/2004
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/6/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1993 BECKY L. LUKOSUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, d/b/a First Tennessee Bank; FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN CORPORATION, d/b/a First Horizon Home Loans, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellees, and FNIS FLOOD SERVICES, L.P., formerly known as Fidelity National Flood Services, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-02-84-2) Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: March 15, 2004 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Qualls, Gate City, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Britt Lyle, HALE & LYLE, Bristol, Tennessee, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Becky L. Lukosus appeals the district court’s judgment granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim. Lukosus filed a motion for judgment in state court charging First Tennessee Bank National Association, First Tennessee Bank, First Horizon Home Loans and JC Johnson City with various common law offenses based on their failure to provide proper flood certification in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act (“NFIA”),42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4129
(2000). The Appellees removed the motion for judgment to federal district court claiming diversity jurisdiction. We review a motion to dismiss de novo. See Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari,7 F.3d 1130
, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is inappropriate unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his allegations. Revene v. Charles County Comm’rs,882 F.2d 870
, 872 (4th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Thus, when considering the propriety of a dismissal, we accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those allegations. Mylan Labs.,7 F.3d at 1134
. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that Lukosus has failed to state a claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense - 3 - 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 - 4 -