Eric Goudy v. Navy Federal Credit Union Foundation

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --