Carletti et al v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers et al

Filing 2

Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Peter C. Economus on 11/18/2008. (H,LA)

Carletti et al v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers et al

Doc. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO R. CARLETTI, et al., Plaintiff, v. U.S. ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:08 CV 2242 JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On September 22, 2008, plaintiff pro se R. Carletti filed this in forma pauperis action against the U.S. Army Corp. Of Engineers and the U.S. Government. forth a coherent claim for relief. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). complaint does not contain Even liberally construed, the reasonably suggesting The complaint does not set

allegations

plaintiff might have a valid federal claim, or indeed, even a claim over which the court has jurisdiction. This action is therefore Apple v. Glenn, 183

appropriately subject to summary dismissal. F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999).

Dockets.Justia.com

Accordingly, this action is dismissed.

Further, 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/Peter C. Economus - 11/18/2008 PETER C. ECONOMUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2