Summary
holding district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte allow plaintiff to amend his complaint before the court dismissed it with prejudice under Rule 12(b)
Summary of this case from Haller v. Cnty. of DundyOpinion
No. 18-2783
05-21-2019
Ed Teague, II Plaintiff - Appellant v. Regent Financial Group, Inc.; Ginnie Mae; Ginnie Mae, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae REMIC 2011-066 Trust; Flagstar Bank, FSB; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"); Planet Home Lending, LLC Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [Unpublished] Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
In this foreclosure-related action, Ed Teague, II, appeals after the district court dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the district court did not err in determining that Teague failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte allow Teague to amend his complaint before the court dismissed it with prejudice. See Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 699 F.3d 1027, 1034 (8th Cir. 2012) (dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where the party never submitted proposed amended complaint or clarified what one might have contained); Carlson v. Hyundai Motor Co., 164 F.3d 1160, 1162 (8th Cir. 1999) ("A district court does not abuse its discretion in failing to invite an amended complaint when plaintiff has not moved to amend and submitted proposed amended pleading.").
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. --------
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.