Rachel v. United Dairy Farmers

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 11 Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice, and CERTIFIES that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, therefore DENYING Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/3/2013. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/4/2013: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DARRIAN RACHEL,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED DAIRY FARMERS,
Defendant.

NO. 1:12-CV-575

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 11) and Plaintiff’s Objection (doc.
15).

For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and

AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and
DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.
This case involves Plaintiff’s allegations that, as a
customer of Defendant, he was falsely accused of stealing, which
was proven untrue after a police investigation.

His pro se

Complaint invokes subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §
1331, that is, “a lawsuit ‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States’” (doc. 3).
The Magistrate Judge initially recommended the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous (doc. 4).
Court,

with

the

benefit

of

Plaintiff’s

objection,

However the
which

the

Magistrate Judge did not have before her, found there was “enough
before

the

Court

to

show

that

Plaintiff’s

investigation and not just dismissal” (doc. 6).

claims

merit

The Court stated

that Plaintiff needed to amend his Complaint (Id.).

Plaintiff did

so

an

(doc.

10),

and

the

Magistrate

Judge,

after

extensive

analysis, again recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
(doc. 11).
The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff fails to state
a claim of intentional racial discrimination, as he fails to refer
to his race or allege any facts suggesting he was denied services
based on his race (doc. 11).

The Magistrate Judge further noted

that the remaining theories for any relief involve injunctive
relief, which is unavailable here where Plaintiff has failed to
allege continuous or ongoing discrimination (Id.).

Plaintiff

indicates in Response that he is willing to take a lie detector
test, he invokes his right to equal protection, and he contends it
is an injustice for the Court to use other cases in evaluating his
own (doc. 15).
Having

reviewed

this

matter,

the

Court

finds

the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation thoughtful, wellreasoned, and correct.

The Court assures Plaintiff that his

truthfulness is not questioned as to the allegation that he was
accused of stealing by an employee of Defendant.

As such, a lie

detector

evidence

test

is

not

considered reliable.

necessary,

even

if

such

were

The problem with Plaintiff’s case is that he

fails to allege any connection between the events he experienced
and any protected legal status.

As such, the Court cannot find

2

monetary relief in the law that Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff further
must understand that courts constantly compare cases in evaluation
of

legal

claims.

Such

comparison

is

at

the

heart

of

fair

evaluation of claims, so as to arrive at consistency and equal
protection under the law.

The Court regrets that Plaintiff had a

bad experience, being searched by a police officer and accused of
stealing. However, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint fail
to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, having reviewed this matter de novo, the
Court

ADOPTS

and

AFFIRMS

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommedation in all respects (doc. 11) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
Amended

Complaint

1915(e)(2)(B).

with

prejudice

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

The Court further CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in
good faith, and therefore the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to
appeal in forma pauperis.

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601

(6th Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2013

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

3