
    Lorraine LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Archie L. SMITH, III; Kelly S. King; Jeff D. Rogers; Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers; Branch Banking & Trust Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1386
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 25, 2016
    Decided: November 2, 2016
    
      Lorraine Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Gerald Cahill, Caroline P. Mackie, Poy-ner Spruill LLP, Raleigh; North Carolina; Bettie Kelley Sousa, Smith Debnam Nar-ron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorraine Blackwell Lewis appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions, and dismissing her civil action. The district court determined that dismissal was warranted under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and because Lewis’ action failed to state a claim against any Defendant on which relief could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that Lewis failed to present any plausible claims for entitlement to relief against Defendants. See Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 180 (4th Cir. 2012) (“To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, thereby nudging the claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal decision on this basis. Lewis v. Smith, No. 3:15-cv-00606-MOC-DSC, 2016 WL 821017 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2016).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 
      
      . D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
     
      
      . After the district court issued its order and judgment, this court issued an opinion clarifying the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Thana v. Bd. of License Comm'rs for Charles Cty., Md., 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016). Because we affirm here on an alternate basis, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis Thana.
     