USCA4 Appeal: 23-1721 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1721

ERIC GOUDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION FOUNDATION, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00280-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: April 29, 2024 Decided: May 16, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Goudy, II, Appellant Pro Se. David M. Gettings, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1721 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Eric Goudy, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failure to respond to Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

We vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

A district court is obliged to review a defendant’s motion to dismiss and ensure that dismissal is appropriate even where, as here, a plaintiff fails to respond to the motion.

Stevenson v. City of Seat Pleasant, 743 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2014). Although the district court may dismiss an action “on the uncontroverted bases asserted” in a motion to dismiss, Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004), it must still review the grounds presented in the motion and cannot treat a nonresponse as a per se procedural default, Stevenson, 743 F.3d at 416 n.3.

Here, the district court dismissed the case because Goudy failed to respond to the motion to dismiss after receiving notice from Defendant that his case could be dismissed in the absence of a response. Because the record does not show that the district court reviewed the motion to dismiss to ensure that dismissal was appropriate, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We deny Goudy’s motion for summary disposition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED