United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Katarina Dunmar financed the purchase of a
laptop in 2005 and now seeks a Court-ordered settlement to
resolve her outstanding debt to Defendants Resurgent Capital
Services ("Resurgent") and LVNV of Las Vegas
("LVNV." collectively. "Defendants").
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss. ECF No. 10. No. hearing is necessary. Loc. R.
105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons,
Defendants" Motion to Dismiss is granted.
December of 2005. Plaintiff purchased a laptop from Best Buy
and financed the purchase through a credit account opened
with HSBC Bank Nevada. N.A. ECF No. 1-3 at 11.Plaintiff alleges
that she paid off approximately $1, 800 of her $2, 200 loan
before she "came across some difficulty one month"
and. as a result, her account was passed around to a number
of debt collection agencies. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. On May 19,
2009. LVNV acquired Plaintiffs credit account, and Resurgent
is the account servicer. ECF No. 1-3 at 9. As of August 28.
2017. Plaintiffs outstanding account balance is $2, 682.79.
Id., Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged
in "reprehensible unjust or corrupt practices" and
requests the Court to facilitate a settlement and payment
plan so that she may discharge her debt obligations.
Id. at 4.
"document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." See
Lintor v. Poison, 263 F.Supp.3d 613. 618-19 (E.D. Va.
2017) (citing Erickson v. Purdus, 551 U.S. 89. 94
(2007)) (internal quotations omitted). However, the Court may
not ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts
that set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Sens., 901 F.2d 387. 390-91 (4th Cir.
1990). The Court may not act as the Pro se
plaintiffs advocate and develop claims that he failed to
clearly raise. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147. 1151
(4th Cir. 1978). Therefore, to overcome a Rule I2(b)(6)
motion, apro se complaint must still allege enough
facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcrofi v.
Iqbai, 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009).
is plausible when "'the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id. In evaluating the sufficiency of
Plaintiffs" claims, the Court accepts factual
allegations in the complaint as true and construes the
factual allegations in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268
(1994); Lambeth v. Bd of Comm'rs of Davidson
Cty., 407 F.3d 266. 268 (4th Cir. 2005). However, the
complaint must contain more than "legal conclusions,
elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement." Nemel Chevrolet, Ltd
v. Consumcraffairs.com. Inc., 591 F.3d 250. 255 (4th
when liberally construed, the Court is unable to decipher a
cognizable claim from Plaintiffs Complaint. While Plaintiff
alleges that she is experiencing financial hardship, she has
failed to set forth any factual allegations to suggest that
Defendants are liable for her present condition. Plaintiff is
not seeking damages from Defendants: rather. Plaintiff
requests that the Court establish a loan repayment plan.
See ECF No. 1-2 at 4 ("I would like the courts
to help me settle this account and set up a way to pay the
courts by the month and until the account is
settled.'') However. Plaintiff has not explained why
Court intervention is necessary or appropriate.
acknowledges that her current account balance is $2, 682.79,
which she "feel[s] is way too much." but she has
not alleged that Defendants have calculated her account
balance in error, improperly assessed interest or fees, or
otherwise violated any Federal or state consumer protection
laws. Plaintiff merely suggests that she is not satisfied
with the way in which Defendants are attempting to collect
the debt or reporting her credit information. See,
e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at 2 ("I feel they are
belligerent and indifferent and cannot make a good deal or
understand a person and a person's life and
situation."); id ("Their bad attitudes
have caused me not to do business with them including
LVNYV"). Without even a suggestion that Defendants have
violated Federal or state law. the Court is unable to provide
foregoing reasons. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. HCF No.
10, shall be granted.
separate Order follows.