Schmier et al v. Navient Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/13/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-3-D

TRISTA ANNE SCHMIER, and
JONATHAN DAVID SCHMIER,
Plaintiffs,

v.
NAVIENT CORPORATION,
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
SALLIE MAE, SLM CORPORATION,
SALLIE MAE BANK, and
JOHN F. REMONDI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On June 12, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' prose compliant for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 21] and filed a memorandum of law in support
[D.E. 22]. The court notified plaintiffs of their right to respond, the deadline for responding, and
the consequences of not responding. See [D.E. 23]; Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309,310 (4th
Cir. 1975) (per curiam). On July 17, 2017, the court extended plaintiffs' response date to July 27,
2017. See [D.E. 25]. Plaintiffs, however, never filed a response.
The court has considered the motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' pro se complaint under the
governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,93-94 (2007) (per curiam); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-63, 570 (2007). Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
See [D.E. 22]. Thus, the court grants the motion to dismiss.

In sum, the court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 21] and dismisses the
complaint without prejudice.
SO ORDERED. This _13_ day of October 2017.

2