Uzi v. Fitness International, LLC

Filing 140

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 94 Report and Recommendation denying 58 and 69 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/21/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Uzi Ora,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16cv875

v.

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Fitness International, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s September 19, 2017
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 94). The Magistrate Judge recommends
denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Docs. 58, 69).
The parties were given proper notice under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed
to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 139).
This Court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's order on a
nondispositive matter and “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate
judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a
dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). However, “[t]he filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not
meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to

object.” Drew v. Tessmer, 36 Fed.Appx. 561, 561 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Miller v. Currie,
50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). “The objections must be clear enough to enable the
district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff’s objections barely meet this

threshold.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter.

Plaintiff seeks to amend his

amended complaint to add claims for racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1981, retaliation in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(I), conspiracy in violation
of Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(J), breach of contract under Ohio common law, and
negligence under Ohio common law. Plaintiff is also seeking to add multiple individual
defendants, including corporate counsel for LA Fitness.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a Court “should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” A motion to amend may be denied where
there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”
Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 521 (6th Cir. 2010), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 220 (2010) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments would
cause undue delay and are also futile. Plaintiff’s objections appear to be limited to the
Magistrate Judge’s decision as it relates to the proposed claims for racial discrimination
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, retaliation in violation of Ohio Revised Code §
4112.02(I), negligence and breach of contract.

2

As to the claim for racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the
Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to allege any facts to show intentional or
purposeful discrimination.
A cause of action under § 1981 may be brought when a plaintiff has suffered an
injury flowing from the racially-motivated breach of his contractual relationship with
another party. Sam Han v. Univ. of Dayton, 541 F. App'x 622, 626 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 480, 126 S.Ct. 1246, 163 L.Ed.2d
1069 (2006)). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that
Plaintiff failed to allege any facts to show intentional or purposeful discrimination.
Plaintiff’s objections only state that Defendant “failed, refused to cooperate, investigate
or act.” (Doc. 139, PAGEID #1777). A complaint that allows the court to infer only a
“mere possibility of misconduct,” is insufficient to “show” that the complainant is entitled
to relief and fails to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8. Sam Han, 541 F. App'x at 626 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)).
As to the claim for retaliation in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(I), the
Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff failed to allege that he was engaged in a protected
activity as defined by the Ohio Revised Code. Plaintiff states he objects to this finding
for the same reason as the objection to the ruling on Section 1981. However, Plaintiff
has not clarified what actions constituted his protected activity. Therefore, the Court
finds no err in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion on this point.
As to the claim for breach of contract and negligence under Ohio common law,
Plaintiff does not make any arguments, and instead references the exhibits attached to

3

his objections. (Doc. 139, PAGEID #1781). While pro se pleadings are “to be liberally
construed” and are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers,” pro se plaintiffs must still satisfy basic pleading requirements. Edwards v.
Univ. of Dayton, 142 F. Supp. 3d 605, 607 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) and
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff’s pleadings do not meet
this standard, and his objections provide very little guidance as to the basis of these
claims. Therefore, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding
that Plaintiff failed to include sufficient allegations in support of these claims.
Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge’s September 19, 2017 R&R (Doc.
94) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend the Complaint
(Docs. 58, 69) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

4