Case Name: Tynisha Latrice REINERIO Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, formerly known as The Bank of New York; Bank of America, N.A.; Southlaw P.C. Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-26
Citations: 668 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 16-1181
Parties: Tynisha Latrice REINERIO Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, formerly known as The Bank of New York; Bank of America, N.A.; Southlaw P.C. Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
Tynisha Latrice REINERIO Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, formerly known as The Bank of New York; Bank of America, N.A.; Southlaw P.C. Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-1181
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: August 23, 2016
Filed: August 26, 2016
Tynisha L. Reinerio, Overland Park, KS, pro se.
David L. Boman, SouthLaw, P.C., Overland Park, KS, for appellee SouthLaw, P.C.
Stephanie C. Bradshaw, James D. Lawrence, Jennifer L. Berhorst, Thomas E. Nanney, Bryan Cave, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for appellee Bank of America, N.A.
Andrew R. Kasnetz, Clayton G. Kuhn, Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard, St. ■Louis, MO, Ross A. Boden, Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard, Kansas City, MO, for appellee The Bank of New York Mellon.
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tynisha Reinerio appeals after the district court dismissed her complaint. On appeal, she argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for remand because it lacked jurisdiction, by dismissing her claims, and by denying motions to compel discovery. Reinerio also files motions to, exclude certain evidence from the appellate record.
First, upon de novo review, we conclude that' removal was proper. See Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review; describing fraudulent joinder standard). Second, we find no - reason to reverse the dismissal order, as Reinerio failed to allege sufficient facts in her amended complaint to state a claim. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 571 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading that offers labels and conclusions, formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action, or tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice). Third, we conclude that the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by denying Reinerio's discovery motions. See Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc. 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review).
In conclusion, we deny Reinerio's motions, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (listing items that constitute record on appeal, including original papers and exhibits filed in district court), and we affirm, see 8th Cir. R.47B.
. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.