Songo v. The Ohio State University

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 5 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C Economus on 7/15/11. (jr1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Jettie Songo,

:
Plaintiff

The Ohio State University,
Defendant

Civil Action 2:11-cv-510

:

v.

:

Judge Economus

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action on June 10, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On June 24, 2011, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation granting Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed without prepayment of fees, but recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff subsequently filed five additional
documents which further described her allegations. The Court will take these as
objections to the Report and Recommendation, which it will now review de novo
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s complaint, as the Magistrate Judge noted, states:
I was harassed at work and school because of my color. I was called
names such as I look like a whore, I smell, and I am a whore. During my
employment with Ohio State, I was subjected to a hostile working
environment. I complained to my managers about my co-workers
comment concerning my dress, accent, color, and smell, but nothing was
done. The authorities I complained to defended their employees that they
did not do anything; instead I am the one they fired from the employment
on June 12, 2010. After employment with Ohio State, I found out that the
1

co-worker who were taking the same classes with me spread the above
name calling to other students that do not know me at school. So the
name calling spread from work to classes I was taking such as biology,
chemistry, ecology, and physics to name a few. The name calling spread
from school to outside school such as grocery stores, on the street, and
other employments I had at Kroger and Giant Eagle. Apart from the
above issues, I cannot have employment at other locations because of the
above harassment that have spread. I cannot go place with out other
people harassing me as if they know me.
(Doc. 1-2 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge, citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554,
555 (2007), concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to give The Ohio State University,
the only named defendant, sufficient notice of what claim is being made against it. He
found:
The complaint does not allege that Defendant caused, incited, or
encouraged “name calling” by Plaintiff’s classmates, or by persons outside
the university. She also does not allege that Defendant caused
“harassment” to “spread”. Plaintiff does allege that a former coworker
was at least partly responsible for spreading name calling outside school
and to prospective employers, but she has not named this former
coworker as a defendant.
(Doc. 5 at 3.)
In the first of her subsequently-filed documents, Plaintiff stated that she “did not
complete my complaint since I was looking for an Attorney to represent me.” (Doc. 7 at
2.) She added a considerable volume of factual allegations, such as that employees and
customers at a nearby Kroger store had made comments about her appearance, smell,
and laundry, and had told her that “people are cooperating with them to see that I do
not have a job and their plan is working” (Doc. 7 at 2), that several lecturers at
Columbus State Community College had advised their students that “I look like a

2

whore, smell like a whore, and do not have a job” (id. at 4; Doc. 9 at 1), that employees
and police officers at the Karl Road branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library were
similarly advising library patrons (Doc. 8 at 1), and that a police helicopter had been
pursuing her and hovering over her house (Doc. 10 at 1).
Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed documents contained some additional allegations
concerning Defendant The Ohio State University, such as that supervisors and
coworkers at two different student intern positions had harassed her, given her less
desirable work, and called her names. See Doc. 11 at 1-5. Nevertheless, her complaint
fails to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face'” against Defendant The Ohio State University. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, an action has no arguable factual basis when
the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible".
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 52, 32-33 (1992); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.3d 1196, 1199 (6th
Cir. 1990). Much of the material alleged in Plaintiff’s supplemental filings is so wholly
incredible that it is legally frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-329 (1989).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the initial screening Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 5). Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Peter C. Economus - July 15, 2011
United States District Judge
3