Lorraine Lewis v. Archie Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00606-MOC-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999960339]. Mailed to: Lorraine Lewis. [16-1386]

Appeal: 16-1386

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

November 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1386

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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

survive

(4th

Cir.

2012)

complaint

must

(“To

allege

facts

a

Rule

sufficient

to

12(b)(6)

motion,

raise

right

a

a
to

relief above the speculative level, thereby nudging the claims
across

the

line

from

conceivable

to

plausible.”

quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

(internal

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).

1

D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2

After 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

Appeal: 16-1386

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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
comports with Thana.

district

court’s

3

Rooker-Feldman

analysis