United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-7059 September Term, 2020
1:19-cv-00658-CRC
Filed On: May 11, 2021
Christopher Earl Peek,
Appellant
v.
Suntrust Bank, Inc.,
Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Tatel, Pillard, and Walker, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties, see Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellee’s
motion for leave to supplement the appendix, the opposition thereto, and the lodged
supplemental appendix, it is
ORDERED that appellee’s motion for leave to supplement the appendix be
granted. The materials from the district court case under appeal are part of the record
and properly included within the appendix. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); Fed. R. App. P.
30(c). The remaining materials are official court records of which the court could take
judicial notice even if they had not been supplied in a supplemental appendix. See
Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 832 F.2d 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987). It is
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 24, 2020
dismissal order be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellant failed
to state a claim for a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, because,
to the extent the complaint alleged any violation, the complaint does not allege any
actual damages resulting from that violation. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Appellant does not articulate any challenge to the district court’s
dismissal of his claims that appellee violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1692-1692p, or engaged in fraud. He has therefore forfeited any challenge to
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-7059 September Term, 2020
dismissal on those grounds. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380
F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
Page 2