Case Name: Phyllis ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, McCalla Raymer, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 473 F. App'x 879
Docket Number: No. 11-15759
Parties: Phyllis ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, McCalla Raymer, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 879–880

Head Matter:
Phyllis ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, McCalla Raymer, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15759
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 19, 2012.
Natalie R. Rowland, Law Office of Natalie R. Rowland, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Andrew G. Phillips, Robert James Wad-dell, Jr., Jimmy Thomas Howell, Jr., Steven James Flynn, Lisa Karp Rose, McGuire Woods, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is a civil action stemming from the allegedly wrongful foreclosure of residential property. The suit began in state court, and defendants removed the case to the District Court because it contained a claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and gave the court subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants moved the district court to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff failed to respond to defendants' motions to dismiss, as required by the District Court's Local Rule 7.1. Then, following its independent review of the complaint's allegations, the District Court found no merit in any of plaintiffs claims and, in an order entered on March 31, 2011, granted defendants' motions. Record, Vol. 1 at Tab 12.
Ten days later, plaintiff moved the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (6) to set aside the court's judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for leave to file a motion to remand. The District Court denied the motion in an order entered on November 7, 2011, id. at Tab 12, and on December 5, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, appealing the District Court's November 7, 2011 order denying her Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) motion. Id. at Tab 21.
We find no error in the District Court's November 7, 2011 order. It is therefore
AFFIRMED.