Johnson et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/11/2017. (c/m 8/11/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)

l"

FILED
~.S,.
~!g~ICT
C!'U!:T

l."

IN TilE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICT COlmtT"Iv!
!':AilYLA::J
FOR TilE DISTRICT OF MARYLANI>
SOl/them Dil'isiol/
ZUIl AUG I I P 2: 08

*
ANGELE ROSE REID, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

.y._- --0-

*

v.

Case No.: <;.111-J(,-37 I 7

*
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

*
I>efendanl.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OI'INION
Plainti ff Angele Rose Reid

I

("Plaintifr'

Ocwcn Loan Scrvicing.

LLC ("DcfcndanC)

Noriinda

Hill. Maryland

Avenue. (hon

is Plaintiffs

Emergcncy

brings tbis I'm .Ie action against

or "Reid")

to quict title on thc rcal propcrty locatcd at

2074S (..the Propcny").2

Stay Motion to Dismiss ['orcclosure.

nos

Now pcnding bcli,rc thc Court

ECF NO.4. and Dcfcndant's

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fcd. R. Civ. 1'. 12(b}(6). ECF No. 12. i\
hearing is unnecessary.
Delcndant"s

See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16). For the following reasons.

Motion to Dismiss is granted. and Plaintitrs

Emergency

Stay Motion is thus denicd

as moot.
I.

BACKGROUNI>
The Court derives the following

facts Ii'om Plaintiffs

Complaint.

-

records. and .judicial records from the Circuit Court I()J'Prince Geor!!e's
District Court I()r the District of Maryland.

ECF NO.2. public land
Count\'. and the U.S.

The Court may consult these documents

without

I The initial Complaint lists Cheryl R. Johnson as lead Plaintiff: however. 35 evident from the pleadings <Ind
subsequent filings. Angclc Rose Reid is properly listed as lead Plainliff in this action. The Clerk shall correci the
docket accordill!!I\'.
1 Plaintirr'\ {lrigi~;lly filed in the Circuit COllrt of Maryland f(.no Prince George's County' 011 Scptl..'mbcr 28. 2016. 50;!!/",
ECF No.2. Defendants rcmoved the Action to this Court on Novembcr 15. 2016. Sel' ECF No. I.

converting

See Sec:\' o(SllIle For

the Motion to Dismiss into onc li)r Summary Judgmcnt.

Defelice \', 7i"imh/e N(fl'iglltioll Ltd. 484 F,3d 700. 705 (4th Cir. 2007) ("In revicwing thc
dismissal

of a complaint

public rccord,"):

under Rule 12(b)( 6). we may properly take judicial

C%llia/PelllllllS,

"the most frequent use of judicial
rccords,")

(internal

citations

Co, \', Coil. 887 F,2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that
notice of asccrtainablc

facts is in noticing thc contcnt of court

omittcd),

On October 26. 2006. thc Propcrty was convcycd
R, Johnson,

a Dccd of Trust ("thc Dced ofTrusn,

Dced of Trust was assigned
Securitized
Certificates.

via Warranty

Deed from Rcid to Chcryl

See ECF No, 12-3 at I:' To purchasc thc Property. Johnson obtaincd a purchasc

money loan ("thc Loan") from Ncw Century Mortgage
executed

noticc of mattcrs of

to Deutsche

Asset Backed Receivablcs
Series 2007-BRI

Corporation

lill' $403.750,00

See ECF No, 12-4 at 1-2, On June 29, 2015, thc

Bank National Trust Company,
LI.C Trust 2007-BR I. Mortgagc

("Deutsche

Bank") at C/O Ocwcnl.oan
proceedings

Pass-Through
Servicing

I.LC See ECF

Trustees

2015 ii)IIowing apparent

dcfault on the Loan, See WIJUUIC \', Johllsoll. C AEF 15-26303 (Cir.

Gcorge's

ii)rec!osure

as Trustce li)r

No, 12-5 at I, Substitute

Ct.l'rince

initiated

and

Cty, Sept. 9. 2015) (thc "Forec!osure

County.

Bank filed suit against Rcid and Johnson

in Scptember

Action"),"

The Propcrty has traced a tortured history throughout
2011. Dcutsche

against Johnson

the Maryland

courts, On .Iune 16.

in the Circuit Court fill'Princc

Deutsche Balik Natiollal Trust \'. Reid. CAEII-14694

(Cir. Ct.l'rince

Gcorge's

Gcorgc's
Cty,

Although the October 26. 2006 Warranty Deed appears to hear Reid"s signature. ECF No. 12-3 at 1. Reid has
claimed throughout years of litigation that l'ither her signature was forged 011 this document. or that the com cyance
was effectuated through fraud, See ECF No. 12-7 at 17 ~ 59; ECF No. 12-10 at I 1-12 ,,~ 59-61; ECF No, IXal 2 "
4. 3 ~ 10. 4 ~ 14. This theory has been implicitly. if I\ot expressly rejected by three dillerent COlIl1s. See EeF No. 12.
8 at I: EeF No. 12-9 at 3: EeF No. 12-11 at 9. The Court need not dctcnninati\'cly resolve this fnct for purposes of
this Opinion. however. because Plaintiffs Complaint is subject to dismissal under principles of res judicata.
I Sce Maryland
Judiciary Case Search Results.
http://casesearch.courts.state
.l1ld .1Is/cascsearc h/i nq LJiry Dcta iIjis?casc I d =C A EF 1526303& loc= 65&dcta i1Loc=- PG V
(last visited August I. 2(17).
.t

2

June 22. 20 II) (the "First Lawsuit'.).;
judgment

that Reid had "no claim or reseissionary

Bank's interest:'

superior.

and that "Oeutsehe

right. title. and interest:'

against Deutsche
injunction

against Johnson.

and that "[Reid

I has

as a result of the purported
complete.

Reid filed counterclaims

requesting

that she "is the absolute owner of the property:'
Cheryl R. Johnson

interest/encumbrance/lien

lOCI' No. 12-6 at 5. In response.

Bank and cross-claims

Deutsche

Bank (as seeurcd party under the Deed of Trust) has

for quiet title. In her Cross and Counter Complaint.

declaration
defendant

interest in the Property affecting

that ..the Deed of Trust is a valid and enforceable

against the Property:'

initio:'

Deutsche Bank sought. among other things. a declaratory

declaratory

Reid specifically

rcliefand

an

sought a

that "any decd recorded by

transfer of the property is void ab

sale. and uninterrupted

ownership

and rights in the

.. :. Eel' No. 12-7 at 23-24.

property

In an Order issued July 23. 2012. docketed on July 30. 2012. the Circuit Court fiJr Prince
Georgc's

County ratified the October 26. 2006 convcyanee

Johnson.

held that the Deed of Trust is''a valid and enfi,)rceable lien" against the Property. and

of the Property from Reid to

ordered Reid to vacate the Property within 15 days. lOCI"No. 12-8 at 1-2. Reid's counterclaims
were dismisscd
reconsideration.

with prejudice.

Id at 2. The Circuit Court denied Reid's requests tor

and Reid appealed

lOCI' No. 12-9 at 2. Reid presented

the decision to the Maryland
several questions

Court erred by ratifying and confirming
Property.
opinion.

SI!I!

Court of Special Appeals.

for review. including

the conveyance.

or by ordering

'<;I!I!

whether the Circuit

Reid to vacate the

id at 2-3. On June 4. 2014. the Court of Special Appeals issued a thirteen-page

affirming

the decision

of the Circuit Court.

SI!I!

id at 3.

'The First Lawsuit is cited herein as ECF Nos. 12-6 (June 16.2011 Deutsche Ban~ Complaint): 12-7 (Scpl. 19.
20 I 1 Reid's Answer and Cross and Counter-Complaint), 12-8 (July 23. 2012 Order from Circuit Court fix Prince
George's County): and 12-9 (June~. 20 I~ Opinion of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals).

3

On July 12. 2012. Reid tiled suit against New Century Mortgage
Deutsche

Bank. Johnson.

(the "Second

injunction

that "plaintiff

by Cheryl Johnson
"plaintiff

Lawsuit")."

19. Defendants

enjoy undisturbed

of the property:'

of res judicata.

PlaintiJrs

claims before it were "essentially

equivalent."

that "any deed recorded
is void ab initio:'

6. The Court closed the case with prejudice.

and that

Bank on

involved the same parties:'

and

lOCI' No. 12-11 at 5. In its opinion. the

Plaintiff to litigate her claims against Deutsche
resolution

an

Plaintiff sought a

the claims against Deutsche

finding that ..the [the First Lawsuitj

interfere with the state court's

rcliefand

and rights" in the Property. Id at 18-

ownership

moved to dismiss. The Court dismissed

Court also noted that allowing

declaratory

transfer of the property

sole and uninterrupted

principles

"unduly

ownership

Reid

at *1 (D. Md. Dcc.

ECF No. 12-10 at 18-21. Specilically.

as a result of the purported

has complete.

2012 WL 6562887.

Plaintiff Reid again requested

lor quiet title on the Property.

declaration

a/k/a

and others in the U.S. District Court lor the District of Maryland.

\'. Nell' Ceil/lilT MOl'/g Corp.. No. 8: 12-CY-02083-AW.
13.2(12)

Corporation

Bank would

of what is. at bottom. a quiet title action:'

It!. at

Id at 9.

On March 15. 2016. Reid initiated yet another action against New Century Mortgage
a/k/a Deutsche

Corporation
George's

Bank and Ocwen Loan Servicing

in the Circuit Court lor Prince

County. Reid \'. Nell' Cel1/llry MOl'/g Corp.. CAE 16-07557 (Cil'. Ct. Prince George's

Cty. March 15.2(16)
the Property.

(the "Third LawsuiC.)7PlaintiITagain

In that complaint.

Complaint

slIhjlldi"e.

including

'authentic

original unaltered

PlaintilTmade
that Defendants

Promissory

allegations

petitioned

the court to quiet title on

nearly identical to the statements

arc "not Iioider/hoider

Note'" and "PlaintifTspeeilieally

in her

in Due Course of the
challenges

the deht

"The Second Lawsuit is cited herein as ECF Nos. 12-10 (July 12. 2012 Complaint): 12-1 I (Dec. 13.2012 Opinion
bv Judge Williams).
'"The l"hird Lawsuit is cited herein as ECF Nos. 12-12 (Mar. 15.2016 PlaintifFs Action to Quiet Title); 12-13 (May
4. 2016 Order).
.

4

instrument that givels] rise to any lien instrument:' COli/fill"'! lOCI'No. 12-12 at 1-5. \rilh ECF
NO.2 at 1-2. On May 4.2016. the Circuit Court It)r Prince George's County granted Oc\\"en's
and Deutsche Bank's Motion to Dismiss. and dismissed PlaintiJrs Complaint "ith prejudice.
ECF No. 12-13.
I'laintiffhas

now Iiled the current action with this Court to quiet title against Oe\\"en Loan

Servicing. See ECF No, 2. PlaintilTonee again claims that Defendants arc "not Holder/holder in
Due Course of the 'authentie original unaltered Promissory Note .... and "I'lainti ff speci lically
challenges the debt instrument that givels] rise to any lien instrument:' Id at 2. I'laintilTalso
makes vague and eonclusory allegations that ..there is not a meeting of the minds as to the
contract agreement:' that ..this is fraud by misrepresentation of a material I~\et."and proclaims
that ..the contract is to be deemed void:' Id at 3. Defendant Oewen has moved to dismiss, ECF
No. 12, Plaintiff liled an Opposition, ECF No. 18, Ilaving revie\\"ed the submissions. the
aggregate of prior court records. and relevant authorities. the Court now grants Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
II.

STANDARD

OF REVIEW

Defendants may ..test the adequacy of a complaint by \\"ay of a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6):' rrelich \'. .lied. Res IlIc.. 813 F. Supp. 2d 654. 660 (D, Md, 2011) (citing
..
Gerll/lIlI \'. Fox. 267 F. App'x 231. 233 (4th Cir. 2008». Motions to dismiss Itlr f~lilureto state a

claim do "not resolve contests surrounding the 1~lctS.he merits of a claim. or the applicability of
t
defenses:' I're/ich. 813 F. Supp. 2d at 660 (citing EdwlIrds \'. Cily'!t'Goldshoro.

178 F,3d 231.

243 (4th Cir. 1999). The court should not grant a motion to dismiss It)r I~\ilureto state a claim It))'
relief unless "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved
consistent with the allegations:'

GE 1m'. I'ril'<lIe I'llicell/elll I'lIrlllers II \'. ['lIrker. 247 F.3d 543.

5

548 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing 11..1. In('.
(1989»,

I'.

Norlllll'eslel'l1 Bell Tel. Co.. 492 U.S. 229. 249-50)

To ovel'come a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. a complaint
claim for relief, Bell AI!. Corp.

plausible

I'.

must allegc enough lilcts to state a

T11'OIIlbl)'.550 U.S. 544. 570 (2007): Ashcl'llfi

Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009). A claim is plausible whcn ..thc plaintilTpleads
that allows the Court to draw thc reasonable
misconduct

allegations

the sufliciency

in the complaint

of the Plaintilfs

as true and construes

favorahle

to the I'laintilT. See Albrighl

COIllIll

ofDa\'ids(J/1

'1'.1

0)'.. 407

of further tactual enhancement."

claims. the Court accepts lilctual

the lilctual allegations

I'.

elements

of a cause of action. and hare assertions

Nelllel ('he\'rolel.

Ltd

I'.

Btl. of'
must
devoid

ConslIIllemftclirs. COIll.In<'.. 591 F,3d

(4th Cir. 2009). Fed, R. Civ. 1'. 8(a) further provides thaI "laJ pleading lhat states a

entitled to relief:'
the defendant
I'.

in the light mOSI

\'. Oiil'('/'. 510 U.S. 266. 268 (1994): Lalllbelh

claim 1<)1'
relief must contain a short and plain statement

Ellgle

is liahle 1<11'
thc

F.3d 266. 268 (4th Cir. 2005), However. the complaint

contain more than "legal conclusions.

250.255

lilctual content

Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678.

alleged:'

In evaluating

inference that the defendant

I'.

Although

"no technical

of the claim showing that the pleader is

I<mns of pleading are required. a complaint

lair notice of what the plaintiffs

must 'give

claim is and the ground upon which it rests ....

Uniled Slales. 736 F. Supp. 670. 671 (D. Md. 1(89). a/rd. 902 F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 19(0)

(citing COllie)' \'. GibsOIl, 355 U.S. 41. 48 (1957)). The Court is not obligated
unsupported

legal allegations.

Cir. 1(89). legal conclusions
286 (1986). or eonclusorv
Black Fir(:tighlers

1'.

-

Re\'elle

I'.

to accept

Charles CO//Illy COllllllissirlll('/'s. 882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th

couched as lactual allegations.

lactual alle~ations
~

Papa.\wI \'. Allain. 478 U ,S, 265.

devoid of any relCrenee to actual events. Uniled

-

Hirsl. 604 F.2d 844. 847 (4th Cir. 1(79).

6

III.

ANAL YSIS
Thc doctrinc of rcs judicata. or claim preclusion. "bars a party li'OJllsuing on a claim that

has already bcen 'Iitigated to a linaljudgment

by that party or such party's privics and prccludcs

the assertion by such parties of any legal theory. cause of action. or dcfense which could hm'c
been asserted in that action:" Ohio Valley Enl'll. Coal.

I',

llracoma Caa/ Co.. 556 F.3d 177. 210

(4th Cir. 2009). Res judicata constitutes a ground for dismissal undcr Rulc 12(b)(6). /)a\'{/ni \'.
Va. Del'

'I

o/Tral1.lp .. 434 F.3d 712. 720 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing ,Indrell's \'. /)(/11'.201 FJd 521.

524 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that dismissal on res judicata grounds is proper undcr Rule 12(b)(6)
unless a disputed issue of material fact exists». /I. Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on res judicata
is only appropriate. however. when the basis for res judicata "c1early appears on the face of the
complaint:'

Thellne \'. U.S'. lJank. N.II.. No. MJG-13-1015, 2013 WL 5934114. at *3 (f).Md.

Nov. I. 2013) (quoting Richmond. Fredericks/JlIIX & P%mac

R.R. Co,

I'.

ForsI,4 FJd 244. 250

(4th Cir. 1993)).
In order fiJr res judicata to bar a claim. three clements must bc present: (I) the prcsent
parties are the samc or in privity with the parties in the earlier disputc: (2) the earlier dispute was
based upon the same causc of action. and (3) there has been a tinaljudgment

on the mcrits. See

Ohio Va//ey. 556 F.3d at 210 (intcrnal citations omitted): acmrd IInl1e ,Inll/de/ COlln/y lJd. of
Edllc. \'. NOITille. 887 1I..2d 1029. 1037 (Md. 20(5):

!l The applicable law for purposes of res judicata is the law of the tribunal in which the prior judgment was entered.
See Letirh~~e Ml/l/hell's. No. eIY.A. ELH-II-3499, 2012 WL 1377060. at *4. n.7 (D, Md, Apr. 18.2012) (citing
\'.

AIigra \'. Warrell Cify Sell. Disi. /1£1. !lEduc:.. 465 U.S. 75. 8' (1984)) (applying lcderal law regarding res judicata).
(
\\'hcn a federal c01ll1litigant asserts rcsjudicata based on a state court judgment. "Ithel federal court must give to
[the) state court judgment the same preclusivc eHect as \\'ould be given that judgment under the law oftht: State in
which the judgment was rendered'" ,\/igra. 465 U.S. at 81 (1984). Here. Reid has prior suits in both state coul1 <lnd
f'Cderalcoun. Because the elements for claim preclusion under Maryland law and federal law are essentially
equivalent. the diffcrence 11<15 no bearing hcrc.

7

With respect to the lirst clement.

it is evident Ihll11 thc face of the Complaint

court records that Plaintiff Reid was a party to all three Lawsuits. and Delendant

and prior

Ocwen was a

party to the Third Lawsuit and in privity with Deutsche Bank. who was a party to all three
Lawsuits.

"Privity

in thc res judicata

involvcs a person so identilied

Inc .. 85 F. Supp. 2d 566. 572-73

(D. Md. 2000). l3ecause Ocwen and Deutsche Bank share a

of interest with respect to the Property. they arc in privity

See. e.g.. roung \'. Dilech Fill.. LLC'. No. CV PX 16-3986.2017
July 19.2017)
judicata

(finding noteholder.

purposes):

Substitute

Trustees.

I()f

res judicata

WL 3066198.

He.

Sen's .. /Ilc .• No. CIV.A. WMN-13-3899.

at *6 (D. Md.

NO.1: 17-CV -77 (.ICCITCB).

WL 1234287. at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4. 2017) (noting that "loan scrvicersare
in privity with the lender on whose behal(they

purposes.

and loan scrviccr were in privity Illr res

Jloddemo \'. Onrell 1.0011
Servicillg.

(finding "holder or servieers

in interest

the same legal right." II llyol1\rll/oku r. Fleel '\/orlgoge Group.

with another that he represents

mutuality

sensc gcnerally

arc servicing

2014 WL 4272022.

regularly

2017

found to bc

thc loan"): Oikelllus \'. Fit!. ,I/ong.
at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 28. 2(14)

of the Note and Deed of TrusC to bc in privity with substitute

trustees).
In regards to the second element. "same cause of action:'
the plaintiff in the second suit is proceeding
first suit:'
transaction

the Court "need not lind that

on the same legal theory Ishel ... advanced

in the

Ohio Volley. 556 F.3d at 210. So long as "the second suit arises out of the same
or series of transactions

have preclusive

effect:'

as the claim resolved by the prior judgment.

It!. (intemal quotations

omitted):

lJi/hrough. 525 A.2d 232. 238 (Md. 1987) (approving
claim preclusion):

the lirst suit will

occord Kenl Oy. 1Jt!.o(Educ. \'.

use of the "transaction"

test to determine

see o/so Boyd \'. BOIrell. 806 A.2d 314. 325 (Md. CI. Spec. ApI'. 20(2) (noting

that "[uJnder the transaction

test. a 'claim'

includes all rights of the plaintilTto

8

remedies against

the defcndant
transactions.

with respect to all or any part ofthc

transaction,

or scries of connccted

out of which the claim arosc:}

Here. not only doe~ Plaintiffs
and Third Lawsuits.

suit arisc out ofthc

hcr theory and most ofhcr allegations

same transaction

as the First. Sccond,

appear to bc identical as wcll. In

evcry suit. Plaintiff has claimed that shc is thc rightful owncr ofthc 2305 Norlinda /\\"cnuc
Propcrty. and that thc Dced of Trust is null and void, Plaintiffs
Lawsuit request a declaration

and injunction

Property, and asscrts that the Dccd is void,
Second Lawsuit again scck dcclaratory

Countcrclaims

f()r quict title on thc 2305 Norlinda A vcnue

See ECl' No. 12-7 at 23-24. PlaintiJrs

and injunctive

Claims in thc

relief that she enjoy complctc

of the 2305 Norlinda Avenue Property. and that any Deed recordcd
No, 12-10 at 18-19, PlaintiJrs

in thc First

owncrship

by Johnson to bc void. ECF

Third Lawsuit mirrors the rcqucst "to quict titlc" that shc makes

now. ECF No, 12-12 at 1. There can be no dispute that the suit at issuc ariscs out of thc same
transaction

as prior suits. and is indeed equivalcnt

Finally. thcrc has been a final judgment
prior adjudication
accorded

at

!o he .I'l/tlici('/1!~)'.firlll

10 he

* 5 (D,

(i/"l{\'e.l' ". Ol1e /Ve.l'! Balik. f~)B. No. PWG-14-1995,

Md, May 20. 2015). atfd

.I'I/h 110111(iJ"({\'e.l' )'. Olle,re.l'!
..

/Jal1k. I'X/J,

788 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing Morgal1 ". Morgal1. 68 Md. ApI'. 85 (Md. Ct. Spec,

ApI', 1986)) (emphasis
dismissal

includes any

based on factors such as whcthcr thc partics wcre heard in thc issue

and whcther the decision was appealable:'

653 l'. App'x

on thc merits ... , l'jinaljudgment

of an issue in another action thaI is delerlllilled

cOI1e1I/.I'ire etkcl.

2015 WL 2452418.

to thc suits raised and litigated bC!l)re,

in .\forgal1).

"other than a dismissal

Unlcss thc court speeilies

IlH lack of jurisdiction.

a party under Rulc 19. operatcs as an adjudication

otherwisc

in its ordcr, any

\l)l' impropcr vcnuc. or lor I~lilurc to join

upon thc merits:'

Fmllk

r. /lollle

Delwl.

U.S.A .. Il1c .. 481 1', Supp. 2d 439. 442 (D. Md. 2007) (citing Fcd. R. Civ. P. 41 (b)). Morcovcr.

9

"indisputably. under Maryland law. a dismissal 'with prejudice' qualilies as an adjudication 'on
the merits .... Church

1'.

,\fmTlal1d.

180 F. Supp. 2d 708. 748 (D. Md.). affd.

53 F. App'x 673

(4th Cir. 2(02) (citing IVoodd)' \'. Woodd)'. 270 Md. 23 (1973».
In Reid's case. the Circuit Court I()r Prince Georgc's County dismissed hcr countcrclaims
in thc First Lawsuit with prejudice. ECF No. 12-8 at 2. Thc Maryland Court of Special Appcals
issued a writtcn opinion and aftinned thc decision ofthc Circuit Court. ECF No. 12-9 at 3. In the
Second Lawsuit. thc U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland also considcrcd PlaintiJrs
complaint. issued a written opinion. and dismissed PlaintiJrs claims with prejudice. ECF No. 12II at 9-10. In the Third Lawsuit. the Circuit Court I(l[ Prince Gcorgc's County again dismissed
Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudicc. ECF No. 12-13 at I. Accordingly. there has bcen a Iinal
judgment on the merits with respect to Reid's claims regarding the Property. For these rcasons.
the instant Complaint must be dismissed on grounds of res judicata.
Even ifnot barred by res judicata. Plaintitrs

Complaint would be dismisscd fiJr failure to

state a claim. Although a Complaint need not contain detailed allegations. the tacts allegcd must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. as "courts are not bound to accept
as true a legal conclusion couched as a tactual allcgation'" Bell All. Corp.

1'.

TII'O/lIhl)'. 550 U.S.

544. 555 (2007). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). a pleading which sets t(mh a claim for relief shall
contain "a short and plain statemcnt of the claim showing that the pleadcr is entitled to relieC"
and each "allcgation must be simple. concise. and dircct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)( I). "Thrcadbare
recitals of the c1emcnts ofa cause of action. supported by mere statements. do not sufticc'"
Ashcro/i

\'. l'1hal. 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009) (citing Tlrol1lh~\'. 550 U.S. at 555). Whilc pro se

complaints are to be construcd liberally. "[pjrinciples requiring generous construction ... arc
not. however. without limits ... [and thc Court] cannot be expected to construct full blown

10

claims trom sentence fragments:' Bel/udell!'. Cil)' ofHl/lI1pIOI1. 775 F.2d 1274. 1278 (4th Cir.
1985). In addition to being barred by res judicata. Plaintitr s Complaint is confusing. vague. and
conclusory. Her Opposition does nothing to eure the pleading deficiencies of the Complaint. nor
does it respond to Defendant's arguments in the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffthercli)re

fails to

comply with Rule 8(a). and her Complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. lOCI'No. 12. is granted. and

PlaintitTs Emergency Stay Motion. lOCI'NO.4. is denied as moot. A separate Order follows.

Date: August {(

&~-

. 20 17

GEORGE .I. HAZEL

United States District Judge

II