Clemons v. Home Depot
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 7/28/14. (c/m apls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil Action No. ELH-14-1309
Daryl Clemons, the self-represented plaintiff, filed suit against Home Depot, defendant.
ECF 2 (Complaint).1 Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 2013, he purchased a dead bolt
lock and keys from Home Depot and installed the dead bolt lock on his front door for safety
reasons. ECF 2 at 1. According to plaintiff, when he was at Home Depot, he noted that all of
the dead bolt locks and keys looked the same. Id. On March 8, 2014, he observed that the key
for the new dead bolt lock matched an older key that he already had in his possession. Id.
According to plaintiff, after he installed the new dead bolt lock, “priceless” items in his residence
went missing, were rearranged, or were otherwise tampered with. Id. As a result, plaintiff has
been living in fear, is scared to purchase any new items, and has been “sick, and feeling poison.”
Id. Plaintiff seeks ten million dollars in damages. Id.
According to defendant: “Home Depot is a non-existing corporate entity. However,
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates the store at 6620 Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland,
where service of the Complaint was made . . . .” ECF 1 at ¶ 7.
Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. On April 17, 2014,
defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332, 1441; see also Notice of Removal (ECF 1). Defendant asserts that Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Atlanta,
Home Depot filed a motion to dismiss (ECF 4) and accompanying memorandum (ECF
10) (collectively, the “Motion”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. In the Motion, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
Defendant argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state “a legal
cause of action, duty, or explanation that establishes what Plaintiff is alleging Home Depot did or
failed to do and how that act or failure resulted in harm to Plaintiff.” ECF 10 at 2. Defendant
contends: “Plaintiff does not state any facts of wrongdoing on the part of Home Depot, fails to
identify any cause of action or legal theories, and forces Defendant and this Court to speculate as
to what the alleged wrongful conduct is, as well as how, when and why it took place or how
Plaintiff was actually damaged.” Id.
On April 18, 2014, in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.
1975), the Clerk of Court mailed a letter to plaintiff notifying him that defendant had filed a
motion to dismiss and advising him of his right to respond within seventeen days. Further, the
Clerk informed plaintiff that failure to file a written response within seventeen days from the
date of the letter could result in dismissal of his case. See ECF 8. To date, plaintiff has not filed
an opposition, and the time for him to do so has long expired. See Local Rule 105.2(a); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(d). No hearing is necessary to resolve this matter. See Local Rule 105.6.
Because plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the Motion, this Court has the discretion
to dismiss the case without reaching the merits. When a plaintiff fails to oppose a motion to
dismiss, a district court is “entitled, as authorized, to rule on the . . . motion and dismiss [the] suit
on the uncontroverted bases asserted” in the motion. Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345,
354 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children’s Guild, 742 F. Supp. 2d 772,
777 (D. Md. 2010) (“By her failure to respond to [defendant’s] argument” in a motion to dismiss,
“the plaintiff abandons [her] claim.”); Mentch v. Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB, 949 F. Supp. 1236,
1247 (D. Md. 1997) (holding that failure to address defendant’s arguments for summary
judgment in opposition brief constituted abandonment of claim). Moreover, a district court has
“the inherent authority . . . to dismiss a lawsuit sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” United
States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 629 (1962).
To be sure, a plaintiff’s failure to oppose a motion to dismiss is no guarantee of victory
for the defendant, because the district court also has discretion to decline to “grant a motion to
dismiss based on the failure to file a timely opposition when the motion is plainly lacking in
merit.” United States v. Sasscer, Civ. No. Y-97-3026, 2000 WL 1479154, at *2 n.6 (D. Md.
Aug. 25, 2000). Nevertheless, I detect no obvious lack of merit in defendant’s argument that the
Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against defendant. Indeed, although I need not
definitively endorse defendant’s position, I am inclined to agree with defendant that plaintiff’s
pleading is vague to the point of inscrutability.2
In light of this finding, I need not address defendant’s alternative argument that the
Complaint should be dismissed because plaintiff filed suit against “Home Depot,” a non-existent
corporate entity, rather than “Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,” the corporate entity that operated the
store identified in the Complaint. Id. at 3.
In light of plaintiff’s failure to oppose the Motion, I can only assume that plaintiff
concedes that his Complaint is deficient for the reasons stated by defendant. Therefore, I will
exercise my discretion to dismiss the Complaint, without prejudice, on the basis of plaintiff’s
failure to oppose the Motion. The dismissal is on the terms set forth in the accompanying Order.
Date: July 28, 2014
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?