
    Grant TREVARTHEN; Clare Trevarthen, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the Registered Holders of the Structured Asset Securities Corporation, Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-BC 6; Fieldstone Mortgage Company; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated, (Mers); Bank of America, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-50458
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 6, 2014.
    David Andrew Rogers, Esq., Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mark Douglas Cronenwett, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Grant and Clare Trevarthen, husband and wife, appeal the Rule § 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice of their suit against Defendants-Appellees. This action, originally filed in state court and removed therefrom, involved the foreclosure on their residence in Cedar Park, Texas. We affirm.

Like the district court before us, we have reviewed the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants-Appellants, the response of the Trevarthens, and the reply thereto of Defendants-Appellants, as well as the appellate briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As a result, we are satisfied that the district court nailed this one precisely in the concluding paragraph of its Order of April 26, 2013. After noting that this is “not the first time Grant Trevarthen has appeared before this Court in frivolous foreclosure litigation” and after identifying prior cases of that ilk, the court concluded that “the spurious allegations and baseless causes of action asserted indicate this suit is simply more legal gamesmanship by the Trevarthans in their ongoing campaign to abuse the legal system and win a free house.” We agree, adding only that the instant appeal is equally spurious and contumacious.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     