Rutledge v. ResCare Central Ohio

Filing 2

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction - objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 07/11/2011. (sr)

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

BARBARA L. RUTLEDGE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:11-CV-594
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

RESCARE CENTRAL OHIO,
Defendant.
ORDER and
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Barbara L. Rutledge, who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, seeks to bring this civil action without
prepayment of fees or costs.

Plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. No. 1, is GRANTED.

All judicial

officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the
costs had been prepaid.

However, for the reasons that follow, it is

recommended that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, who is 62 years old, alleges in her Complaint
that, after receiving exemplary evaluations by a senior supervisor,
she was transferred to the supervision of a younger supervisor who
made complaints about plaintiff’s performance.

Plaintiff was

thereafter transferred to a different facility, where she worked for
the mother of that younger supervisor.

Plaintiff alleges that she was

not given a chance there, because the mother of the younger supervisor
“proceeded to carry out the wishes of her daughter to get [plaintiff]
fired from” defendant.

Complaint, p.3.

Plaintiff seeks monetary

damages.
Plaintiff does not indicate the basis of this Court’s
jurisdiction.

Both parties appear to be residents of Ohio; the Court

therefore lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Although plaintiff indicates her own age and refers to a “younger”
supervisor, she does not allege that she was fired because of her age.
Plaintiff also does not allege that she filed a charge of age
discrimination with any authorized agency.

It therefore does not

appear that plaintiff intends to pursue a federal claim of age
discrimination under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

There is no

suggestion in plaintiff’s filings that she intends to pursue any other
claim arising under federal law.

It therefore appears that the Court

lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this
Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days,
file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and
Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis
for objection thereto.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy thereof.

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.

2

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation
of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United
States v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
July 11, 2011
Date

3