Theobald et al v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/26/2016. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

LEE ANN THEOBALD,
LEO F. THEOBALD, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 950

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiffs Lee Ann Theobald and Leo F. Theobald bring this civil rights action
against defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The statement of claim portion of the Complaint
states in its entirety as follows:
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation of 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland,
Ohio 44195 documented a False Claim of one bottle of liquid morphine
as stolen.
I did not steal the bottle of liquid morphine from business as indicated.
Request to discharge this False Claim of one bottle of liquid morphine.
* I did not steal.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it
lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual
allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual

allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not meet this pleading standard. Id.
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid claim, see, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,,
76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or
unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief),
nor does it set forth a claim over which this Court might arguably have subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court finds this case is therefore appropriately subject to summary
dismissal. See, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

April 26, 2016

-2-