Ed Teague, II v. Regent Financial Group, Inc.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2783

___________________________

Ed Teague, II

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - 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

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

Submitted: May 15, 2019

Filed: May 21, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure-related action, Ed Teague, II, appeals after the district court1 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.”).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.