P. Chyba, proceeding pro se, challenges the dismissal of her claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real *374 Estate Settlement Procedures Act for failure to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted. (The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.) Chyba contends: the district court erred in dismissing her complaint sua sponte; she stated sufficient facts to establish claims for relief; and her claims were subject to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations under TILA.

A district court has the authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court allowed Chyba to file an amended complaint and warned her of the possibility of dismissal if her amended complaint failed to allege sufficient facts.

A dismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo. E.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). To survive dismissal, the complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Chyba’s claims are conclusory and speculative.

And, because the district court did not dismiss Chyba’s complaint as untimely, her statute-of-limitations contention is irrelevant.

AFFIRMED.