Filed: Jun. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-3178 _ Kevin Tharp, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant, v. CitiMortgage, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota _ Submitted: June 2, 2020 Filed: June 5, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kevin Tharp appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se action against CitiMortgage, Inc. Upon
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-3178 _ Kevin Tharp, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant, v. CitiMortgage, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota _ Submitted: June 2, 2020 Filed: June 5, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kevin Tharp appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se action against CitiMortgage, Inc. Upon c..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-3178
___________________________
Kevin Tharp,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CitiMortgage, Inc.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 2, 2020
Filed: June 5, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Tharp appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se action against
CitiMortgage, Inc. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. We agree that Tharp
1
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
failed to state a claim regarding interference with his right to redemption, as he did
not plead facts sufficient for the court to infer that CitiMortgage was liable for any
wrongdoing. See Minn. Stat. § 580.23; Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
We also agree that Tharp’s claims arising under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, and his state law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, were time-barred. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614; Minn. Stat. §§ 541.05,
541.07. Finally, we deny the request in Tharp’s reply brief to supplement the record
on appeal. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc.,
988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th
Cir. 1993).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-