UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1107

JODY C. COONLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00192-JAG)

Submitted: August 30, 2019 Decided: September 6, 2019

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. McLaughlin, THE LAW OFFICE OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Alison Wickizer Toepp, Douglas E. Pittman, REED SMITH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jody C. Coonley appeals the district court’s order granting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss her complaint. The district court held that Coonley did not have standing to sue Wells Fargo. We affirm.

“This Court reviews a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo.”

McCaffrey v. Chapman, 921 F.3d 159, 163 (4th Cir. 2019). “[W]hen standing is challenged on the pleadings, we accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” Curtis v. Propel Prop. Tax Funding, LLC, 915 F.3d 234, 240 (4th Cir. 2019) (bracket and internal quotation marks omitted).

On appeal, Coonley has abandoned her argument that she is a third-party beneficiary of the loan agreement. Rather, Coonley asserts that she has standing to sue as the homeowner. Coonley, however, cites no authority for this argument and has, therefore, waived it. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see Russell v. Absolute Collection Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 396 n.* (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coonley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-cv-192-JAG (E.D. Va. Dec. 26, 2018).

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