James Arthur Cockhren; Margaret Louise Cockhren v. H. Raymond Terpstra, II

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1033
___________________________
James Arthur Cockhren; Margaret Louise Cockhren
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
H. Raymond Terpstra, II
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
____________
Submitted: August 18, 2015
Filed: August 21, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Cockhren and Margaret Cockhren appeal the district court’s dismissal1
of their pro se complaint against an attorney. In their complaint, they asserted claims
The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the1
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

under the Truth in Lending Act, a state-law claim for breach of fiduciary duties, and
a state-law claim for loss of consortium. After careful de novo review, see Levy v.
Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the
complaint failed to state a claim, see 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g) (defining “creditor” under
Truth in Lending Act); Shivvers v. Hertz Farm Mgmt., Inc., 595 N.W.2d 476, 479
(Iowa 1999) (discussing attorney’s duty of care); Huber v. Hovey, 501 N.W.2d 53,
57 (Iowa 1993) (discussing loss-of-consortium claim under Iowa law); see also
Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may
affirm on any basis supported by record).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --