Ronald A. Davis v. BSI Financial Services, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01155-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999763957]. Mailed to: Davis. [15-2113]

Appeal: 15-2113

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2113

RONALD A. DAVIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BSI
FINANCIAL
SERVICES,
INC.;
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, (MERS),

MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-01155-JFM)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Bizhan Beiramee, BEIRAMEE LAW
GROUP, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland; Mary Seminara Diemer, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2113

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ronald
dismissing,

A.
for

Davis

appeals

failure

to

the

state

district
a

court’s

claim,

his

order

complaint

asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 to 1692p (2012), and several other theories of
recovery.

Davis sought to enjoin BSI Financial Services, Inc.,

(“BSI”) from foreclosing on his real property; claimed that BSI
engaged in intentional misrepresentation, negligence, fraud, and
unjust

enrichment;

financial
fraud

and

Electronic

and

instruments
sought

sought
between

a

to

quiet

title

the

parties.

declaratory

judgment

Registration

Systems

(“MERS”).

and
He

cancel

also

against
On

all

alleged
Mortgage

appeal,

Davis

challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint on
several grounds.
“We review de novo the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

Epps v. JP Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A., 675 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir. 2012).

“To survive a

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)).
We first consider Davis’ contention that, under Maryland
law, BSI cannot enforce the note against Davis because the note
2

Appeal: 15-2113

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

had been separated from the deed of trust for the property in
question.

But

explained,

a

as

the

“deed

of

Court
trust

of

Appeals

cannot

be

of

Maryland

transferred

has

like

a

mortgage; rather, the corresponding note may be transferred, and
carries with it the security provided by the deed of trust.”
Anderson

v.

added).

Burson,

Thus,

the

35

A.3d

452,

district

460

court

(Md.

rightly

2011)

(emphasis

rejected

Davis’

contention.
Davis also seeks to invalidate the assignment of the note
to BSI because, he claimed, it had been mechanically signed, or
robo-signed.
was

not

a

Regardless of the truth of this assertion, Davis
party

to

the

assignment

and

fails

to

demonstrate

either that he has standing to challenge the assignment or that
robo-signing renders the assignment void.
Next,
address

or

Davis

challenges

“provide

the

standards

district
to

theories alleged in his complaint.

cure”

court’s
many

of

failure
the

to

legal

But our review of the record

reveals that Davis did not support any of these theories with
factual allegations sufficient to “state a claim to relief that
is

plausible

on

its

face.”

Twombly,

550

U.S.

at

570.

Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing them.
Finally, we review the denial of Davis’ motion for leave to
amend for abuse of discretion.

Tatum v. RJR Pension Inv. Comm.,

761 F.3d 346, 370 (4th Cir. 2014).
3

“Leave to amend need not be

Appeal: 15-2113

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

given when amendment would be futile.”

In re PEC Solutions,

Inc. Sec. Litig., 418 F.3d 379, 391 (4th Cir. 2005).

And after

reviewing the record, we conclude that amendment would indeed
have been futile.
with

the

benefit

Davis provides no basis for believing that,
of

more

particularized

allegations,

his

complaint could survive a motion to dismiss.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

dismissing Davis’ complaint.

the

district

court’s

order

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

4