Gail H. Clayton; Thomas A. Clayton v. Alexander Wells; Allyson P. Wells

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1611
GAIL H. CLAYTON; THOMAS A. CLAYTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ALEXANDER WELLS; ALLYSON P. WELLS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00908-LCB-JEP)
Submitted: December 6, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gail H. Clayton, Thomas A. Clayton, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel F. E. Smith, BROOKS
PIERCE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gail H. Clayton and Thomas A. Clayton appeal the district court’s order and
judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss their complaint raising claims related to
state court foreclosure proceedings. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible
error. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the Claytons’ complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because
disposition of their claims would have required review of the state foreclosure judgment
and a determination by the district court that it was wrongly decided.* Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. Clayton v. Wells, No. 1:22-cv-00908-LCB-JEP
(M.D.N.C. June 10, 2024). 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
* D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923).

-- 2 of 2 --