Court Opinion

ID: 4539414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-05 16:00:21.560226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:28.505253
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 19-3178
                         ___________________________

                                     Kevin Tharp,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

                                            v.

                                 CitiMortgage, Inc.,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: June 2, 2020
                                Filed: June 5, 2020
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Kevin Tharp appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se action against
CitiMortgage, Inc. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. We agree that Tharp

      1
      The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
failed to state a claim regarding interference with his right to redemption, as he did
not plead facts sufficient for the court to infer that CitiMortgage was liable for any
wrongdoing. See Minn. Stat. § 580.23; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
We also agree that Tharp’s claims arising under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, and his state law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, were time-barred. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614; Minn. Stat. §§ 541.05,
541.07. Finally, we deny the request in Tharp’s reply brief to supplement the record
on appeal. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th
Cir. 1993).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-