United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 15-1033
                         ___________________________

                James Arthur Cockhren; Margaret Louise Cockhren

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

                                            v.

                              H. Raymond Terpstra, II

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: August 18, 2015
                              Filed: August 21, 2015
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       James Cockhren and Margaret Cockhren appeal the district court’s1 dismissal
of their pro se complaint against an attorney. In their complaint, they asserted claims

      1
      The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
under the Truth in Lending Act, a state-law claim for breach of fiduciary duties, and
a state-law claim for loss of consortium. After careful de novo review, see Levy v.
Ohl, 

, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the
complaint failed to state a claim, see 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g) (defining “creditor” under
Truth in Lending Act); Shivvers v. Hertz Farm Mgmt., Inc., 

, 479
(Iowa 1999) (discussing attorney’s duty of care); Huber v. Hovey, 

,
57 (Iowa 1993) (discussing loss-of-consortium claim under Iowa law); see also
Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 

, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may
affirm on any basis supported by record).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-