The pro se Plaintiff alleged that Defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act because she suffered from asthma and they had not taken effective steps to prohibit the boyfriend of the tenant who lived in the apartment above her to smoke in the tenant's apartment. Judge Frederick Motz did not hesitate to decide that Plaintiff failed to make any allegations from which it could be inferred that the Defendants discriminated against her because of her asthma or for any other reason. Moreover, the record also established that Defendants had taken steps to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff's concerns. Specifically, Defendants had: (1) moved Plaintiff from another apartment unit in which she complained about odors that she smelled to her present apartment unit; (2) performed preventative maintenance in Plaintiff's present unit, including caulking around the baseboards, insulating all doors and windows, insulating pipes, insulating outlets, adding filters in air-vents and adding a product known as "True Air Filter"; (3) written to all tenants requesting that they and their visitors smoke only on balconies; and (4) advised Plaintiff that she could be released from her contractual obligations under her lease agreement at anytime.

Plaintiff rejected all of Defendants' offers of accommodation. Apparently, in her view the only proper action for Defendants to take was to require the tenant living in the apartment above her to relocate or somehow to compel her from permitting her boyfriend to smoke in the apartment. The Court made it clear that the law provides no basis for this request. Moreover, the Court referenced an affidavit from the tenant in question, who denied that she or her boyfriend smoked or used other substances in her apartment. Indeed, she asserted that because of her own respiratory condition, she does not permit any smoking to take place in her apartment. Further, she asserted that she has "been the target of Plaintiff Allen's repeated, and increasingly troublesome and volatile, harassment."

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland treated Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as one for Summary Judgment. Defendants' motion was granted.