UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1386
LORRAINE LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARCHIE L. SMITH, III; KELLY S. KING; JEFF D. ROGERS; SMITH
DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS; BRANCH BANKING &
TRUST COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00606-MOC-DSC)
Submitted: October 25, 2016 Decided: November 2, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorraine Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Gerald Cahill,
Caroline P. Mackie, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Bettie Kelley Sousa, SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING &
MYERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorraine Blackwell Lewis appeals the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting
Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions, and dismissing her
civil action. The district court determined that dismissal was
warranted under the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine and because Lewis’
action failed to state a claim against any Defendant on which
relief could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error in the district court’s determination that
Lewis failed to present any plausible claims for entitlement to
relief against Defendants. See Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171,
180 (4th Cir. 2012) (“To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a
complaint must allege facts sufficient to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level, thereby nudging the claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible.” (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted)). We therefore affirm
the district court’s dismissal decision on this basis. 2 Lewis v.
Smith, No. 3:15-cv-00606-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2016).
1D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2After the district court issued its order and judgment,
this court issued an opinion clarifying the scope of the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for
Charles Cty., Md., 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016). Because we
affirm here on an alternate basis, we find it unnecessary to
(Continued)
2
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
consider whether the district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis
comports with Thana.
3