Leonardo Manson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00293
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION LEONARDO MANSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-293 (MTT) ) WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF 12. In an effort to afford Manson, who is proceeding pro se, adequate notice and time to respond to the Defendant’s motion, the following notice is given. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985). If Manson wishes to respond, he must do so no later than TWENTY-ONE DAYS from the receipt of this Order.1 If Manson does not timely respond to the motion to dismiss, the Court may dismiss his claims. Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. Manson may submit his argument to this Court by filing a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Unless the Court has granted prior permission, any brief should not exceed 20 pages. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. In addition, the Court advises Manson that a response brief is not the proper avenue for amending his

1 The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the motion to dismiss (ECF 12) to Manson at his last known address. Thereafter, all notices or other papers may be served on Manson directly by mail at his last known address. complaint.2 If the response is drafted with the aid of artificial intelligence, Manson shall fully disclose the circumstances surrounding his use of artificial intelligence, and he must expressly state that he has verified the accuracy of all legal authorities cited. The Court evaluates a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim using

the following standard: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when “the court [can] draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability fall short of being facially plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation modified).

At the motion to dismiss stage, “all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” FindWhat Inv. Grp. v. FindWhat.com., 658 F.3d 1282, 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation modified). But “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal

2 The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[a] plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.” Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The Circuit has, in unpublished opinions, applied the same rule when a pro se party seeks to cure deficiencies in his brief opposing a motion to dismiss. Gladney v. Consumers Credit Union, No. 13-13959, 2024 WL 2797914 at*4 (11th Cir. May 31, 2024) (per curiam) (stating that the plaintiff “could not cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint by asserting additional facts in his response to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss”); Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (stating that “[b]ecause [plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), it was not properly raised below”). conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Wiersum v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 785 F.3d 483, 485 (11th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation modified). Where there are dispositive issues of law,

a court may dismiss a claim regardless of the alleged facts. Patel v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 904 F.3d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018). SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January, 2026. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT