USCA4 Appeal: 24-1611 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1611

GAIL H. CLAYTON; THOMAS A. CLAYTON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ALEXANDER WELLS; ALLYSON P. WELLS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00908-LCB-JEP)

Submitted: December 6, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gail H. Clayton, Thomas A. Clayton, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel F. E. Smith, BROOKS PIERCE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1611 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Gail H. Clayton and Thomas A. Clayton appeal the district court’s order and judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss their complaint raising claims related to state court foreclosure proceedings. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the Claytons’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because disposition of their claims would have required review of the state foreclosure judgment and a determination by the district court that it was wrongly decided. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Clayton v. Wells, No. 1:22-cv-00908-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C. June 10, 2024). 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

* D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).