James Cockhren and Margaret Coc-khren appeal the district court’s dismissal 1 of their pro se complaint against an attorney. In their complaint, they asserted claims under the Truth in Lending Act, a state-law claim for breach of fiduciary *864 duties, and a state-law claim for loss of consortium. After careful de novo review, see Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the complaint failed to state a claim, see 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g) (defining “creditor” under Truth in Lending Act); Shivvers v. Hertz Farm Mgmt., Inc., 595 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Iowa 1999) (discussing attorney’s duty of care); Huber v. Hovey, 501 N.W.2d 53, 57 (Iowa 1993) (discussing loss-of-consortium claim under Iowa law); see also Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may affirm on any basis supported by record).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.