Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01386/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-1386 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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-Feldman1 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). 

 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)

Appeal: 16-1386 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
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 district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis 

comports with Thana. 

Appeal: 16-1386 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3