Smith v. MTGLQ Investors ( 2021 )

Case: 19-20665 Document: 00515921103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 30, 2021
No. 19-20665
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Wayne Smith,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
MTGLQ Investors, L.P.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-1888
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Wayne Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Smith asserted claims of violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, negligence, fraudulent concealment,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20665 Document: 00515921103 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2021
No. 19-20665
fraudulent inducement, slander of title, and rescission under the Truth in
Lending Act. The relief he sought included a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and monetary damages.
We review “a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and
viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Harris Cty.
Texas v. MERSCORP Inc., 791 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Smith argues that the district court
erred by dismissing the case without first requiring the defendant, MTGLQ
Investors, L.P. (MTGLQ), to provide documents proving that it had the
authority to foreclose on his property.
The Deed of Trust and assignment records relating to Smith’s
property were public records, and the district court was permitted to take
judicial notice of those unrebutted records in granting MTGLQ’s motion to
dismiss. See Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007).
Smith’s argument fails to show that his allegations stated a claim upon which
relief could be granted. See MERSCORP, 791 F.3d at 551; Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). Smith does not brief any other argument challenging the district
court’s reasons for dismissing his claims, and he has thus waived any such
arguments. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)
(recognizing that even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to
maintain them).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Smith’s
motion seeking an order to prevent the collection of payment from him is
DENIED.
2