Newson v. Proctor & Gamble et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #3 Complaint filed by Yolanda E. Newson. IT IS RECOMMENDED this action be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 3/6/2025. (km)(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
YOLANDA E. NEWSOME,

Case No. 1:25-cv-00011

Plaintiff,
McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Yolanda Newsome a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania brings this
action against defendants, Proctor and Gamble, AstraZeneca, Dr. Noel Williams and Dr.
Michael Daneilwicz. By separate Order issued this date, plaintiff has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before
the Court for a sua sponte review of plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the
complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a
“litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying
litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or
repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has
authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied
that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A

1

complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with
a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29
(1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has
no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims
a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An
action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the
level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at
1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are Afantastic or
delusional@ in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A
complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
By the same token, however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal
and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

2

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The
Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as
true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not
contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).

A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations
omitted).
Here, Plaintiff brings a complaint for violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff’s Statement of the Claim states as follows:
PROCTOR & GAMBLE et al. manufactured a medication that caused I
(The Plaintiff) to have a mental and physical injury of the PRILOSEC
medication. DR. NOEL WILLIAMS et al. became aware of the PRILOSEC
medication In the year of 2015, and still continuously had I (The Plaintiff)
to Intake this medication knowingly after the FDA said that it’s BANNED).
DR. MICHAEL DANIELEWICZ et al. knowingly knew that after I (The
Plaintiff) was given his guidance to use a different medication of
(FAMOTIDINE), that It caused I (The Plaintiff) to be constipated, but DR.
MICHAEL DANIELEWICZ et al. still sent me back to DR. NOEL
WILLIAMS et al. knowing he caused il (The Plaintiff) a mental and physical
Injury.
(Doc. 1-1, p4).
For relief, Plaintiff asks for “Declaratory Damages of $10,000,000,000.00. Per
Person of Monetary Damages $10,000,000,000.00. Per Person of Compensatory

3

Damages $10,000,000,000.00. Per Person of Punitive Damages $10,000,000,000.00.”
Id. at 5.
Upon careful review, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted in this federal court. “To state a viable claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff ‘must allege that he was deprived of a right secured
by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color
of state law.’” Smith v. Detroit Entertainment L.L.C., 338 F.Supp.2d 775, 778 (E.D. Mich.
2004) (quoting Wolotsky v. Huhn, 960 F.2d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir. 1992)). Here, two
defendants are corporations, and two defendants are private individuals. None appear
to be or are alleged to be persons acting under color of state law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
claims do not include sufficient allegations to support the existence of federal question
jurisdiction. In addition, Plaintiff fails to include sufficient facts to state any plausible
claim against any Defendant. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
For these reasons, it is therefore RECOMMENDED this action be DISMISSED
with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. It is further RECOMMENDED that
the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in
good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
YOLANDA E. NEWSOME,

Case No. 1:25-cv-00011

Plaintiff,
McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the
Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall
specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections.

A party shall respond to an

opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those
objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit
rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

5