Shontay House; Mary Vega v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Brock & Scott, Pllc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2250
SHONTAY HOUSE; MARY VEGA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; BROCK & SCOTT,
PLLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (4:14-cv-00129-D)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 25, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Clayton King, Steven F. Johnson II, LANIER, KING & PAYSOUR, PLLC,
Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Franklin Greene, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shontay House and Mary Vega appeal from the district court’s January 9, 2015,
order granting in part and denying in part the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Brock & Scott,
PLLC, and the district court’s September 28, 2016, order granting Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and denying their cross-motion for partial summary judgment in
their civil action challenging their ejectment from residential property. House and Vega
confine their appeal of the January 9 order to the court’s dismissal of their claim for a
violation of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, see N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 75-1.1, for failure to state a claim. They challenge the September 28 order on the
bases that Chapter 42 of North Carolina’s General Statutes provides the exclusive remedy
for evicting tenants from residential property and that there is an issue of fact that may
entitle them to partial summary judgment.
Applying de novo standards of review, Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757, 765
(4th Cir. 2017), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Jun. 5, 2017) (No. 16-1449);
Lawson v. Union Cty. Clerk of Court, 828 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2016); Bauer v. Lynch,
812 F.3d 340, 351 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 372 (2016); Henson v. Liggett Grp.,
Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 1995), we have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. House v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 4:14-cv-00129-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 9,
2015 & Sept. 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --