Case Name: Robert HILL; Mary Hill, his wife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCA CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-10
Citations: 622 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 15-1554
Parties: Robert HILL; Mary Hill, his wife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCA CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Robert HILL; Mary Hill, his wife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCA CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1554.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 19, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 10, 2015.
Ralph C. Young, Jed R. Nolan, Hamilton, Burgess, Young & Pollard PLLC, Fayetteville, West Virginia, Troy N. Gia-tras, The Giatras Law Firm PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Paul C. Kuhnel, Kevin P. Oddo, John T. Jessee, Joseph M. Rainsbury, Leclair Ryan PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER . CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Hill and Mary Hill appeal from the district court's order granting Defendant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing their amended class action complaint for failure to state a claim, confining their appeal to the district court's dismissal of their claims alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), see W. Va.Code Ann. § 46A-1-101 to 46A-8-102 (Lexis-Nexis2015), We affirm.
We review a district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim de novo, "assuming all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint to be true." Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir.2011). "To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiffs' '[fjactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,' thereby 'nudg[ing] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.' " Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Although we "must accept the truthfulness of all factual allegations" in the complaint, Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 180 (4th Cir.2012), statements of bare legal conclusions "are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). We will accept the conclusions the plaintiffs draw from the facts "only to the extent they are plausible based on the factual allegations." Burnette, 687 F.3d at 180. Additionally, like the district court, we may consider documents attached to the complaint. Sec'y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir.2007). Where a conflict exists between "the bare allegations of the com plaint" and any attached exhibit, "the exhibit prevails." Fayetteville Inv'rs v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir.1991).
We conclude after review of the amended class action complaint, the letters attached thereto, and the parties' briefs that the district court did not reversibly err in dismissing the complaint. The Hills did not articulate facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate plausible claims for relief under the WVCCPA. See W. Va.Code Ann. § 46A-2-124, -125, -127, -128, & 46A-6-102(7)(M); Chevy Chase Bank v. McCamant, 204 W.Va. 295, 512 S.E.2d 217, 225 (1998); Orlando v. Fin. One of W. Va., Inc., 179 W.Va. 447, 369 S.E.2d 882, 885 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Hill v. SCA Credit Servs., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-29565, 2015 WL 1808930 (S.D.W.Va. Apr. 22, 2015).
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.