Peter and Susan Yakowicz brought the instant suit claiming breach of contract and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605(c), (e)(2), arising out of defendants’ denials of their mortgage-loan modification applications and subsequent foreclosure on their home. The district court 1 granted *351 defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Yakowiczes have filed two pro se motions to supplement the record.

After reviewing the record below and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we deny the motions to supplement the record, because appellants fail to demonstrate that the new evidence was actually unavailable before the district court decided the case. See Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092 (8th Cir. 2013). Further, upon our careful de novo review, see Butler v. Bank of Am., N.A., 690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that appellants failed to state a claim for a RESPA violation or for breach of contract, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim plausible on its face); Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 833 (Minn. 2011) (elements of breach-of-contract claim under Minnesota law).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.