Carol Jean Oney, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDINGS I, LLC, other, PennyMac Holdings LLC,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2585
CAROL JEAN ONEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDINGS I, LLC, other,
PennyMac Holdings LLC, other, PennyMac Loan Servicing, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-01525-JFM)
Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 27, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
April T. Ademiluyi, LAW OFFICE OF APRIL T. ADEMILUYI, Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant. Edward W. Chang, BLANK ROME LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; James R. Billings-Kang, BLANK ROME
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carol Jean Oney appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her second amended complaint asserting a claim under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p
(2012), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We review de novo
a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting
factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d
462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient “facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
committed no reversible error. We therefore 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

-- 2 of 2 --