Ifeanyichukwu Iroh v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, No. 16-20052 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 10, 2017.
Download PDF
Case: 16-20052 Document: 00514548521 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-20052 Summary Calendar FILED July 10, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk IFEANYICHUKWU IROH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CALIBER HOME LOAN, INCORPORATED; DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, LIMITED; RANDALL C. PRESENT; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BRIA CARTER; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; CHASE BANK; SUMMIT TRUSTEE SERVICES, L.L.C.; NATHAN F. SMITH; RECONTRUST, N.A., Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-1601 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Ifeanyichukwu Iroh appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-20052 Document: 00514548521 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 No. 16-20052 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because Iroh failed to file an amended or new notice of appeal with respect to the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, this court’s jurisdiction does not extend to a review of that ruling. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 392 F.3d 802, 806-07 (5th Cir. 2004). We review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. United States ex. rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2003). The district court did not err in rejecting either Iroh’s claim for attempted wrongful foreclosure, see Foster v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 848 F.3d 403, 406-07 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), or his apparent argument based on the split-the-note theory, see Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2013). There is no merit to Iroh’s arguments that the district court judge was biased against him, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), or that there should have been a full evidentiary hearing and an opportunity for discovery, see Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000). We do not review issues that were raised for the first time on appeal or were not raised in the initial appellate brief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we will not consider Iroh’s claims that particular defendants committed fraud on certain dates, that the defendants were subject to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and that Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. was improperly dismissed as a defendant. See id. Iroh has failed to brief, and thus abandoned, his claims under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, the United States Constitution, Title 15 of the United States Code, and Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations. See id. at 224-25. Finally, because Iroh has failed to renew in this appeal his claims to quiet title to the property in question and 2 Case: 16-20052 Document: 00514548521 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 No. 16-20052 for declaratory and injunctive relief, those claims are likewise abandoned. See id. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
