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.)

Download PDF
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

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?