Brown-Henderson v. Capital One, N.A, No. 8:2013cv03324 - Document 17 (D. Md. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiffs 7/29/14 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/29/14. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : GWENDOLYN BROWN-HENDERSON, et al. Plaintiffs : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 13-3324 : CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this action to quiet title is an unopposed Defendant Capital One, N.A. motion to (ECF No. 10). dismiss filed by Plaintiffs Gwendolyn Brown-Henderson and Lemuel A. Henderson commenced this action on September 23, 2013, Defendant in Maryland. (ECF No. 2). the by filing Circuit Court a pro for se Prince complaint against George s County, Plaintiffs purport to be the owners of real property located at 2201 Green Ginger Circle, Accokeek, Maryland 20607 (the Property ). (Id.). It appears that all of Plaintiffs claims stem from a loan they obtained from Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. ( Chevy Chase Bank ) on August 23, 2007 in the amount of $632,000. (ECF Nos. 2-2 & 11-2).1 The loan was evidenced by an adjustable rate note (the Note ) and secured by 1 In 2009, Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. converted to a national association and merged with Capital One. Yangouyuan v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, No. No. 13 cv-10112, 2013 WL 1319500, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2013). a Deed of Trust. (ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2). in blank by Chevy Chase Bank. Although factually The Note was endorsed (ECF No. 11-2, at 6). sparse, Plaintiffs action to quiet title appears to challenge Defendant s authority to enforce the lien on the Property. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that: (1) Defendant is not the holder in due course of the authentic original unaltered promissory Note ; and (2) the mortgage agreement lasts for a term longer than five (5) years, which Plaintiffs believe evidences fraud. the validity of the signature on Plaintiffs also challenge the note, and demand that Defendant show them the original unaltered promissory note. (ECF No. 2, violations of at 2). the Fair Finally, Debt Plaintiffs Collection appear Practices to allege ( FDCPA ), arguing that Defendant is a debt collector. Defendant moved to dismiss on November 14, 2013. 10). (ECF No. Plaintiffs were provided with a Roseboro notice, which advised them of the pendency of the motion and their entitlement to respond letter. within seventeen (17) days from the date of the (ECF No. 12); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment). On December 5, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for a thirty- day extension of time to file an opposition, (ECF No. 15), which the undersigned granted on December 2 13, 2013 (ECF No. 16). Plaintiffs were instructed to file an opposition by January 6, 2014. (Id. ΒΆ 2). To date, Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the time for them to do so has long expired. Because Plaintiffs failed to file any opposition to the motion, the court has the discretion to dismiss the case without reaching the merits. Indeed, Judge Hollander recently dismissed the complaint in White v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-13-00031, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2014), where pro se plaintiff failed to oppose defendant s motion to dismiss. Judge Hollander stated that [w]hen a plaintiff fails to oppose a motion to dismiss, a district court is entitled, as authorized, to rule on the . . . motion and dismiss [the] suit on the uncontroverted bases asserted in the motion. Id. (quoting Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004)); Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children s Guild, 742 F.Supp.2d 772, 777 (D.Md. 2010) ( By her failure to respond to [defendant s] argument in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff abandons [her] claim. ). Although the district court also has discretion to decline to grant a motion to dismiss based on the failure to file a timely opposition when the motion is plainly lacking in merit, this is not the case here. White, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 (quoting United States v. Sasscer, Civ. No. Y-973026, 2000 WL 1479154, at *2 3 n.6 (D.Md. Aug. 25, 2000)). Moreover, a district court has the inherent authority . . . to dismiss a lawsuit sua sponte for failure to prosecute. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)); White, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 ( [i]n light of plaintiff s failure to oppose the [m]otion, I can only assume that plaintiff concedes that her Complaint is deficient for the reasons stated by defendant. ). There is no obvious lack of merit in Defendant s motion given the allegations which give rise contained to a claim cognizable cause of action. dismiss will be granted. in Plaintiffs to quiet complaint, title or none any of other Accordingly, Defendant s motion to A separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
