Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00197-BO)
Argued:
Decided:
November 1, 2012
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Eddie and Dorothy Wise (the Wises) appeal the
district courts dismissal of their Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. discrimination claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
failed
to
treatment
plead
of
any
facts
non-minority
comparing
Because Appellants
their
applicants,
we
treatment
affirm
the
to
the
district
courts dismissal.
I.
On
October
19,
2000,
nine
African-American
and
female
District
Department
of
of
Columbia
Agriculture
alleging
(USDA)
that
had
the
United
discriminated
States
against
other
benefits.
Plaintiffs
brought
various
claims,
stayed
the
litigation.
entire
action
pending
resolution
of
related
severed
remaining
the
distinct
plaintiffs,
discrimination
including
the
claims
Wises
of
claim
the
before
eight
this
Court.
the
Lynch
farm,
located
in
Nash
County,
North
local
County
Supervisor
discriminated
against
by:
to
failing
requested;
them
provide
failing
to
for
because
them
provide
USDA,
they
with
F.
were
loan
technical
Sidney
Long,
African-American
applications
support;
when
failing
to
applications;
summarily
denying
their
loan
Wises
also
allege
that
the
USDA
failed
to
properly
USDA
filed
motion
to
dismiss
under
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
The district
this Court.
II.
We review de novo the decision of a district court to grant
or
deny
12(b)(6).
2011).
motion
to
dismiss
pursuant
to
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
of a plaintiffs complaint.
186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).
Eastern Shore
Markets v. J.D. Associates, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000).
While
detailed
factual
allegations
are
not
required,
the
15 U.S.C. 1691(a)(1).
of
Title
VII
employment
discrimination.
See,
e.g.,
Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc. 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6th Cir.
1998); Mercado-Garcia v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 979 F.2d 890, 893 (1st
Cir. 1992); Cooley v. Sterling Bank, 280 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1338
(M.D. Ala. 2003); Davis v. Strata Corp., 242 F. Supp. 2d 643,
651-52 (D.N.D. 2003); Gross v. United States Small Bus. Admin.,
669 F.Supp. 50, 53 (N.D.N.Y. 1987), affd 867 F.2d 1423 (2d Cir.
1988).
712,
715
(7th
Cir.
1998).
We
followed
suit
in
our
sole
the ECOA context, the Wises had to set forth a prima facie case
consisting of four elements:
credit;
3) USDAs
office
in
Nash
County
rejected
their
of
the
Wises
protected
class.
See
Rowe
v.
Union
Planters Bank of Southeast Missouri, 289 F.3d 533, 535 (8th Cir.
2002).
6
were
extended
credit
or
were
otherwise
given
more
of
McDonnell
Douglas.
While
the
Wises
complaint
any
facts
alleging
that
non-minority
credit
applicants
credit
applicant
of
similar
credit
stature
in
Nash
County.
the
and
the
the
The Wises argue for the first time on appeal that reports
by the Office of Inspector General and Civil Rights Action Team
along
with
the
settlement
in
the
high
profile
Pigford
v.
practice
of
discrimination
at
USDA
that
establishes
that
See 185
Court
has
in
ECOA
an
not
had
occasion
discrimination
to
claim
decide
is
whether
limited
to
a
the
put
fourth
forward
prong
of
pattern-or-practice
a
prima
facie
evidence
case.
We
to
do
fulfill
not
reach
the
this
question here because the Wises did not raise the issue below.
Generally, a federal appellate court does not rule on issues
that are not presented to the district court.
Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976).
Singleton v.
that issues which are not raised at the district court level
will
not
be
considered
on
appeal
unless
exceptional
issue
fundamental
would
be
miscarriage
plain
of
error
justice.
or
would
Holland
result
v.
Big
in
River
Minerals, 181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Muth v.
United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)).
The Wises
250
theories
(ruling
for
limitations
that
the
unless
Appellant
first
time
could
exceptional
on
not
appeal
to
forward
avoid
circumstances
statute
existed).
new
of
The
As such, we do
pled
discrimination
under
direct
evidence
and
disparate impact theories fails because they did not raise these
theories at the district court level.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED