Schmier et al v. Navient Corporation et al
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
TRISTA ANNE SCHMIER, and
JONATHAN DAVID SCHMIER,
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
SALLIE MAE, SLM CORPORATION,
SALLIE MAE BANK, and
JOHN F. REMONDI,
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.
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?