# Smallwood v. American Signature Home Inc.

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · July 22, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124997

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 22, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124997

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124997. Public record. Not legal advice.