Flippin v. Chex Systems, Inc.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMEER FLIPPIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 19-3052 (BAH) v. ) Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell ) CHEXSYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Ameer Flippin, appearing pro se, filed this action, under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681et seq., against defendant ChexSystems, Inc., which has filed a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ECF No. 21. Plaintiff has
filed no timely opposition. See Order (Dec. 19, 2019), ECF No. 23 (advising plaintiff to respond
by January 30, 2020, and cautioning that defendant’s unopposed arguments may be treated as
conceded). For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted. 1
On December 31, 2019, the foregoing order was returned to the Clerk as undelivered at
plaintiff’s address of record. See ECF No. 24. Therefore, the Court cannot find that the plaintiff
has conceded defendant’s motion. Review of the complaint, however, makes clear that the
complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. See generally Def.’s Mem.;
cf. Wood v. Moss,
134 S.Ct. 2056, 2067(2014) (“under the governing pleading standard, ‘the
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
1 On November 15, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint against the governmental defendants, see Case Caption, was dismissed pursuant to the screening provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Order, ECF No. 6.
1 is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678(2009)). That said,
defendant’s request to dismiss the complaint “with prejudice,” Mem. at 13, is denied because a
dismissal with prejudice “is warranted only when a trial court determines that the allegation of
other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”
Firestone v. Firestone,
76 F.3d 1205, 1209(D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). The circumstances of this case do not warrant such definitive relief.
A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be filed
contemporaneously.
/s/ Beryl A. Howell CHIEF JUDGE DATE: May 13, 2020
2
Reference
- Status
- Published