BAKER v. CITIMORTGAGE INC MERS (2019)

[Unpublished]

In this foreclosure-related action, Michelle Baker appeals after the district court ¹ dismissed her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Baker 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 that there is no merit to Baker’s arguments on appeal that she was improperly denied a hearing, an opportunity to engage in discovery, and a jury trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“[T]he court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide discretion in handling discovery matters); Duncan v. Dep’t of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (because dismissal was proper, there was no issue for trial). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Katherine M. Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.