United States District Court, D. Maryland
NITA B. ARCHIE
LAWONNE ELENORA AGER BOOKER
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending and ready for resolution in this fraud action is a
motion to dismiss filed by Defendant LaWonne Elenora Ager
Booker (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 49). The court now
rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6.
For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion to
dismiss will be granted.
Factual Background 
Nita B. Archie (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was
defrauded and her identity was stolen in connection with a
mortgage scheme. According to Plaintiff, Defendant and others
operated To God Be The Glory Financial Services, Inc.
(“TGBTG”), a company located in Prince
George’s County, Maryland, specializing in tax
preparation, financial literacy, certified housing
counseling, and debt consolidation and elimination. (ECF No.
5, at 2-3). According to Plaintiff:
[Defendant] acted as agent, leader, and chief promoter to
unsuspecting persons seeking tax preparation. Upon $500
payment to [Defendant], [Defendant] obtained [W-2 forms] and
other tax preparation documents. [Defendant] inquired about
homeownership and financial goals of Plaintiff. [Defendant]
introduced other financial services provided by [TGBTG]
focused on HUD approved, HUD certified financial literacy
service endorsed by Oprah Winfrey by [and] through [TGBTG].
Following [Defendant’s] financial transactions
[Defendant] vanished without any forwarding information now
(Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff continues, “[Defendant
and others] romoted, promised and delivered following tax
preparation a 203K financial product which in actuality was a
‘NO DOC’ financial product as a ways and means of
[Defendant] credit repair, financial literacy method of
[TGBTG], guarantee of financial stability.”
(Id. at 6).
brings this action “for fraudulent, false statements
[initiated] by [Defendant and others] unbeknownst to
Plaintiff” and “[i]dentity theft [initiated] by
[Defendant and others] falsifying Plaintiff’s primary,
true . . . residence.” (Id. at 7). Plaintiff
seeks compensatory, cumulative, and punitive damages in the
amount of three million dollars and injunctive relief.
(Id. at 10).
proceeding pro se, sued Defendant and others on
February 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1). The court granted
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 3) and Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on March 21 (ECF No. 4). The court consolidated two
cases brought by Plaintiff against Defendant and others,
determined that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to
comply with federal pleading standards, and granted Plaintiff
the opportunity to file a second amended complaint comporting
with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). (ECF No. 7).
filed a second amended complaint on April 18, adding another
defendant. (ECF No. 5). On July 17, the court dismissed
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as to all named
defendants except Defendant LaWonne Booker. (ECF No. 21).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed five additional motions: a
motion of intimidation (ECF No. 25); a motion (ECF No. 26); a
motion for default judgment (ECF No. 27); a motion regarding
intentional infliction of emotional distress (ECF No. 28);
and a motion regarding abuse of power (ECF No. 29). The court
denied Plaintiff’s motions for failure to conform to
the standards set by Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B) and (C). (ECF
No. 33, at 2).
March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed two additional motions: a
motion regarding perjury (ECF No. 39); and a motion regarding
obstruction of justice (ECF No. 40). Subsequently, Defendant,
also proceeding pro se, filed a motion to dismiss
for improper service and because Plaintiff brought her case
against an individual rather than a corporation. (ECF No.
41). On December 21, Plaintiff’s two motions and
Defendant’s motion to dismiss were denied, and
Defendant was given 21 days within which to file a response
or answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF
No. 45). On February 2, 2016, the court directed Plaintiff to
file a motion for entry of default, which Plaintiff
subsequently filed. (ECF Nos. 46; 47).
February 29, 2016, Defendant filed the pending motion to
dismiss, a motion to vacate any default, and an answer to the
amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 49; 50; 51). Plaintiff was
provided with a Roseboro notice, which advised her
of the pendency of the motion to dismiss and her entitlement
to respond within 17 days. (ECF No. 52); see Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975)
(holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of
their right to file responsive material to a motion for
summary judgment). On March 2, the court denied
Plaintiff’s motion for clerk’s entry of default
against Defendant. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff ...