641 Fed.Appx. 131 (3rd Cir. 2016), 15-3138, Dophin v. Bank of America Mortgage Co.

Docket Nº:15-3138
Citation:641 Fed.Appx. 131
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:YOUSELINE DOPHIN, Appellant v. BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE COMPANY; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOAN
Attorney:Youseline Dophin, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Hamilton, NJ. For Bank of America Mortgage, Bank of America Home Loans, Defendants - Appellees: Phoebe N. Coddington, Esq., Elizabeth T. Timkovich, Esq., Winston & Strawn, Charlotte, NC; Stephen Steinlight, Esq., Winston & Strawn, New York, NY.
Judge Panel:Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 01, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 131

641 Fed.Appx. 131 (3rd Cir. 2016)

YOUSELINE DOPHIN, Appellant

v.

BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE COMPANY; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOAN

No. 15-3138

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

February 1, 2016

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 25, 2016.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Editorial Note:

This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-14-cv-03193). District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan.

Youseline Dophin, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Hamilton, NJ.

For Bank of America Mortgage, Bank of America Home Loans, Defendants - Appellees: Phoebe N. Coddington, Esq., Elizabeth T. Timkovich, Esq., Winston & Strawn, Charlotte, NC; Stephen Steinlight, Esq., Winston & Strawn, New York, NY.

Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.

Page 132

OPINION[*]

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Youseline Dophin appeals the District Court's order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss her second amended complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise a plenary standard of review. See Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.

Dophin filed her initial complaint against defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) in May 2014. She alleged that she initially obtained a mortgage loan for her home

Page 133

from Countrywide, and that BANA took over the loan after acquiring Countrywide. She claimed, generally, that BANA is corrupt, has kept her from working, and otherwise caused her difficulties. BANA filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted BANA's motion, but gave Dophin leave to amend her complaint. Dophin filed an amended complaint, BANA filed another Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the District Court again granted the motion but invited amendment.

Dophin then filed a second amended complaint, which is at issue in this appeal. She complained that BANA had acquired her mortgage without her consent, had limited her ability to work, had sent an employee to her home to talk to her without her permission, and had engaged in other debt collection or foreclosure activities. She alleged that this conduct violated her rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments; she also raised claims of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. BANA filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) and, after holding a hearing, the District Court granted BANA's motion and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. Dophin filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

In support of her appeal, Dophin has filed an informal brief, which, instead of presenting specific challenges to the District Court's opinion, states only, " I disagree with the Judge['s] decision which my complaint is dismissed with prejudice." Br. at 1. Because Dophin is proceeding pro se, we construe her brief liberally. See, e.g., United States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 334 (3d Cir. 2007). At the same time, we will review only those arguments that she has actually presented. See United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005) (" It is well settled that an appellant's failure to identify or argue an issue in his opening brief constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal." ); see also Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (" While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned[.]" (internal citation omitted)). Dophin has not adequately presented any issue for our review.

In the interest of completeness, however, we have independently reviewed her claims and the District Court's opinion, and conclude that the Court did not err in dismissing her second amended complaint. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint's " [f]actual allegations...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP