Njya Gharwal appeals the dismissal of her claim to determine adverse interests in property under Minn.Stat. § 559.01. Ghar-wal argues that the district court 1 erred in dismissing her claim under federal pleading standards because the federal pleading standards conflict with the state substantive law of Minnesota for actions under Minn.Stat. § 559.01. Gharwal’s argument is foreclosed by this circuit’s binding precedent. We have previously concluded that there is no conflict between the federal pleading standards and the state substantive law of Minn.Stat. § 559.01. See, e.g., Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, 704 F.3d 545, 547-48 (8th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has recently held that, even in Minnesota’s state courts, pleading only the two facts of possession and an adverse claim is insufficient to state a claim. Mutua v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. A13-0498, 2013 WL 6839723 (Minn.Ct.App. Dec. 30, 2013) (unpublished); see also Gerdes v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 561 Fed.Appx. 573 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding that Mutua reinforces Kamatcheva’s holding). Gharwal’s bald claim that the foreclosure is void due to the existence of an unrecorded assignment of the mortgage lacks the factual support necessary to make it plausible and therefore fails to meet the federal pleading standard. See Karnatcheva, 704 F.3d at 548 (noting “legally insufficient conjecture and ‘labels and conclusions’ ” are not enough to state a plausible claim (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007))). Having reviewed the district court’s decision de novo, Dunbar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 709 F.3d 1254, 1256 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review), we find no error in dismissing Gharwal’s claim.

We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.