Case Name: Beverley GRIFFITH-FENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERS, et al., Defendants, Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-22
Citations: 531 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 12-3357
Parties: Beverley GRIFFITH-FENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERS, et al., Defendants, Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
Beverley GRIFFITH-FENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERS, et al., Defendants, Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-3357.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 22, 2013.
Beverley Griffith-Fenton, NY, pro se.
Cynthia Ann Augello, Esq., Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Garden City, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Beverley Griffith-Fenton, pro se, appeals from a final judgment dismissing her complaint alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; the Home Affordable Modification Program, and various state laws, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(e)(2). See Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P., 634 F.3d 706, 715 (2d Cir.2011); Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court judge in his well-reasoned decision entered May 30, 2012.
We have considered all of Appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.