Smallwood v. American Signature Home Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

3:24-cv-313-MOC-DCK

LAMONT SMALLWOOD, )

)

Plaintiff, pro se, )

)

v. )

)

) ORDER

)

AMERICAN SIGNATURE HOME )

INC., )

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by

Defendant American Signature Home, Inc., pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Doc. No. 22).

I. Background

Pro se Plaintiff Lamont Smallwood filed this action on March 15, 2024, claiming that he

was subject to employment discrimination based on his race and religion in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff attached a right to sue letter from the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Doc. No. 1-1). The factual allegations

and relief sections of Plaintiff’s Complaint are left blank.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the

pleadings when it would not delay trial. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 12(c). “A motion for judgment on the

pleadings under Rule 12(c) is assessed under the same standards as a motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(6).” Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Edwards v.

City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). Therefore, under Rule 12(c), a claim must

be dismissed when a claimant’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would

entitle the claimant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to

survive a motion to dismiss). When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court is “obliged to

accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of

the plaintiffs.” Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 685 (4th Cir. 2018).

Additionally, “[f]ederal courts are obliged to liberally construe filings by pro se litigants.”

U.S. v. Brown, 797 Fed. Appx. 85, 89 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972)). However, even a pro se litigant’s complaint should be dismissed when “it appears

beyond doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle

him to relief.” Barefoot v. Polk, 242 Fed. Appx. 82, 83 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Gordon v. Leeke,

574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)).

III. Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court agrees. Beyond stating that Defendant has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

Plaintiff does not state the elements of a claim or include a single factual allegation. Even when

construing the Complaint liberally and evaluating it in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is

beyond doubt that Plaintiff has not stated a claim that, if proven, could entitle him to relief.

Plaintiff’s claim will be dismissed.1

1 The Court also notes that, despite the Court’s issuance of a “Roseboro” order informing

Plaintiff of his right to respond to Defendant’s motion and the deadline for doing so, Plaintiff did

not respond. That order stated that failure to respond may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.

See (Doc. No. 24).

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the

pleadings, (Doc. No. 22), is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.

Signed: July 22, 2025

EBL evr

Max O. Cogburn i &

United States District Judge Felgen