U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2016

Oney v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC

Oney v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 27, 2016 · Niemeyer, Duncan, Agee
667 F. App'x 409

Oney v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carol Jean Oney appeals the district court’s order dismissing her second amended complaint asserting a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2012), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We review de *410 novo a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmov-ing party. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient “facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court committed no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.