Case ID: f-appx_460/html/0373-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

P. CHYBA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.; Ryland Title Company; Ryland Mortgage Company; Recontrust Company N.A.; R.H. of Texas Limited Partnership, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-10472
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 10, 2012.
    P. Chyba, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Richard Dwayne Danner, Litigation Counsel, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

P. Chyba, proceeding pro se, challenges the dismissal of her claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act for failure to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted. (The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.) Chyba contends: the district court erred in dismissing her complaint sua sponte; she stated sufficient facts to establish claims for relief; and her claims were subject to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations under TILA.

A district court has the authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir.2006). The district court allowed Chyba to file an amended complaint and warned her of the possibility of dismissal if her amended complaint failed to allege sufficient facts.

A dismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo. E.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007). To survive dismissal, the complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Chyba’s claims are conclusory and speculative.

And, because the district court did not dismiss Chyba’s complaint as untimely, her statute-of-limitations contention is irrelevant.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.