UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1968

CATHY D. BROOKS-MCCOLLUM; SAMUEL J. MCCOLLUM,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

THE RESERVE @ ELK RIVER, (With Permission Of the Court upon

Indemnification Ruling and within Corporate Document),

Plaintiff,

v.

ASPEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY; BRADFORD L. CARILLO, JR.; 

ALLISON FENWICK; MICHAEL NEALL & ASSOCIATES; ADELAIDE ARKU; 

DAVID O’CONNOR; EUNITA BOOKER; MRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY; MCMULLEN & DRURY PA; RICHARD W. DRURY; PAUL TRAPANI; 

NORMAN ANDERSON; MICHAEL S. NEALL; SCOTT J. SILVERMAN; NAGLE 

& ZALLER, P.C.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District

Judge. (1:13-cv-00324-JFM)

Submitted: November 14, 2013 Decided: January 8, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum; Samuel J. McCollum, Appellants Pro Se. 

Eric H. Haversack, HYATT & WEBER, PA, Annapolis, Maryland; Scott 

Jon Silverman, Erin Kathleen Voss, NAGLE & ZALLER PC, Columbia, 

Maryland; Michael Stuart Neall, MICHAEL NEALL & ASSOCIATES, 

Annapolis, Maryland; Richard Warren Drury, MCMULLEN, DRURY & 

PINDER, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum and Samuel J. McCollum,

Plaintiffs, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their

complaint, as amended, against the Defendants. Plaintiffs

alleged numerous claims under Maryland state law and violations

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The district court dismissed 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. On appeal, Plaintiffs assert that they had

plausibly asserted violations of the FCRA and the FDCPA. We

affirm.

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(1).” 

Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402, 408 

(4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs have the burden of proving subject 

matter jurisdiction. Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. County Comm’rs of 

Caroll Cnty., Md., 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2008). We also

review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint as

true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the

nonmoving party. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery

Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). To survive a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
4

“facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

The only plausible basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 

action is federal question jurisdiction, with the FCRA and the 

FDCPA providing the hooks for supplemental jurisdiction over the 

alleged state claims.* See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367 (2006). 

Although Plaintiffs have alleged violations of federal statutes, 

a federal court may dismiss claims invoking federal question 

jurisdiction for want of subject matter jurisdiction if the 

claims are not “colorable,” such as claims that are “wholly 

insubstantial and frivolous.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 

500, 513 n.10 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); Dixon 

v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 818-19 (4th Cir. 2004) (en 

banc). Our review leads us to conclude that Plaintiffs’ claims 

are not “wholly insubstantial or frivolous,” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. 

at 513 n.10, in light of Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants 

 * Although the district court did not identify the documents 

upon which it relied in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction, we have considered the allegations in 

Plaintiffs’ complaint and the relevant documents attached to the 

motion to dismiss. See CACI Int’l, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & 

Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 150, 154 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts 

may consider the complaint itself and any documents that are 

attached to it.”); Am. Chiropractic Ass’n v. Trigon Healthcare, 

Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing that courts 

may consider a document attached to motion to dismiss if the

document “was integral to and explicitly relied on in the 

complaint and if the plaintiffs do not challenge its 

authenticity”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
5

attempted to collect their past-due homeowner’s association fees 

and assessments through unlawful means. 

Nonetheless, we conclude that Plaintiffs failed to state a 

claim under the FCRA because they did not allege at any point 

that any Defendant was a credit reporting agency for purposes of 

the FCRA or that any Defendant requested or used a credit 

report. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(f), 1681n(a) (2012); Ausherman v. 

Bank of Am. Corp., 352 F.3d 896, 900 (4th Cir. 2003).

We also conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to state a 

claim under the FDCPA. The officers of the homeowner’s 

association are not debt collectors under the FDCPA, see 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(4), (6)(A) (2012), nor is MRA Property Management 

Company, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii) (2012). To the extent 

the remaining Defendants may be considered debt collectors under 

the FDCPA, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint did not allege any 

violations of the FDCPA that occurred within one year of 

Plaintiffs’ filing of the instant action. See 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d) (2012) (providing a one-year statute of limitations

starting from the date of the violation of the statute). 

Finally, in the absence of a federal question, the district 

court did not err by declining to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3) (2006).
6

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of 

the action, deny all of Plaintiffs’ motions filed on appeal, and 

deny as moot Defendants’ motions to strike. 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