English v. SunTrust Bank et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 4/13/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 4.14.17)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
TERRY ENGLISH

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

SUNTRUST BANK, et al.

*

Defendants

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

CIVIL NO. JKB-16-4091

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Now pending before the Court is the Defendants’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED (ECF No.
10). The Plaintiff has not responded.1 Defendants have also filed what it captions as a REPLY
(ECF No. 15), although there is nothing on the docket to which the Defendants may reply.
The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) will be GRANTED by separate Order, for the
reasons set out in the Defendants’ MEMORANDUM (ECF No. 10-1) filed in support of the
Motion. The Complaint is fatally deficient. The Court notes that although the Plaintiff never
succeeded in docketing a response to the Motion, the Court nevertheless took the opportunity to
review papers he proposed to submit in response, and has taken on board the thrust of the
Plaintiff’s theories in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Those arguments and theories are

1

The pro se Plaintiff apparently attempted to file papers with the Court approximately three weeks after the motion
to dismiss was docketed. The Clerk of the Court did not docket the papers and instead alerted the undersigned to
certain deficiencies in the submission which resulted in a RETURN PLEADING ORDER (ECF No. 14) entering on
the docket. The deficient papers were returned to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never corrected his deficiencies and
never docketed a response to the motion to dismiss. The Court also notes that the Plaintiff was sent a standard “Rule
12/56 Letter” (ECF No. 13) some six weeks ago, explaining the importance of the motion to dismiss and the need
for the Plaintiff to respond. Again, Plaintiff has not docketed a response to the pending motion.

unpersuasive, and had they found their way into a successfully docketed response, they would
not have changed the outcome here.
The pending MOTION TO QUASH (ECF No. 6) will be DENIED AS MOOT in light of
the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

_______________/s/___________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge