URREGO v. SAMUEL WHITE (2020)

Nazira Urrego appeals from the district court's order granting the defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing Urrego's amended complaint, which alleged claims for attempted fraudulent foreclosure and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), Pub. L. No. 103-325, §§ 151-58, 108 Stat. 2190, 2190-98 (1994). We affirm the dismissal of Urrego's attempted fraudulent foreclosure claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Urrego v. Samuel I. White, P.C., No. 3:17-cv-00437-MHL-DJN, 2019 WL 7340299 (E.D. Va., Dec. 30, 2019). As to Urrego's claims under TILA and HOEPA, we conclude that Urrego has forfeited appellate review because Urrego's informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court's dismissal of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.^* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We decline to consider the issues and claims that Urrego raises for the first time on appeal. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.