Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01611/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01611-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gail H. Clayton
Appellant
Thomas A. Clayton
Appellant
Alexander Wells
Appellee
Allyson P. Wells
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1611

GAIL H. CLAYTON; THOMAS A. CLAYTON, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

ALEXANDER WELLS; ALLYSON P. WELLS, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00908-LCB-JEP) 

Submitted: December 6, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gail H. Clayton, Thomas A. Clayton, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel F. E. Smith, BROOKS 

PIERCE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1611 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Gail H. Clayton and Thomas A. Clayton appeal the district court’s order and 

judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss their complaint raising claims related to 

state court foreclosure proceedings. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible 

error. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the Claytons’ complaint 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because

disposition of their claims would have required review of the state foreclosure judgment

and a determination by the district court that it was wrongly decided.

*

 Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. Clayton v. Wells, No. 1:22-cv-00908-LCB-JEP 

(M.D.N.C. June 10, 2024). 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

* D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 

263 U.S. 413 (1923). 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1611 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2