Maurice Glenn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
710 F. App'x 574
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Maurice Glenn, pro se, sued Wells Fargo asserting breach of contract, discrimination, and retaliation relating to account handling and credit application denials.
- District court dismissed parts of the amended complaint: some claims ordered to arbitration and remaining claims dismissed for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Glenn did not contest on appeal the arbitration dismissal of his business line of credit claims and thus forfeited review on that issue.
- The district court treated Glenn’s amended complaint as lacking specific factual allegations tying denials to race or to protected complaints; it declined to consider new evidence or exhibits not incorporated in the complaint.
- The court held Glenn failed to plead either direct evidence of discrimination or a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas for ECOA, MECOA, FHA, and Title VI claims, and found his retaliation and judicial-bias allegations unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitration order for certain credit claims was reviewable | Glenn did not challenge arbitration order on appeal | Wells Fargo relied on arbitration agreement enforcement | Forfeited on appeal; arbitration dismissal stands |
| Whether amended complaint stated plausible discrimination claims (ECOA/MECOA/FHA/Title VI) | Glenn alleged adverse actions and asserts discriminatory motive and past approvals show qualification | Wells Fargo argued allegations were conclusory and did not plead qualification or causal link | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead direct evidence or McDonnell Douglas prima facie case |
| Whether court erred by refusing to consider affidavit/exhibits and by requiring evidence pre-discovery | Glenn argued court improperly required evidence and should have allowed document review | Wells Fargo argued Rule 12(b)(6) review is limited to complaint and incorporated/attached documents | No error: court properly limited review to complaint and incorporated documents; discovery not reached |
| Whether judicial bias, conspiracy, or attorney malpractice claims were cognizable | Glenn alleged judge was biased and appellate sabotage; raised attorney malpractice | Glenn argued rulings reflected discrimination and incompetence | Rejected: judicial rulings alone do not show bias; claims speculative; attorney-malpractice not cognizable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain factual allegations supporting plausible claim)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving discrimination absent direct evidence)
- Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2016) (limits on materials considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings alone rarely establish bias)
- Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2014) (appellate review limited to issues preserved in brief)