Bostic v. Harvest Grove Apartments et al

Filing 3

INITIAL SCREENING/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis AND 2 Complaint, filed by Teddy Glen Bostic, Sr. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion 1 be GRANTED. It is RECOMMENDED that the complaint 2 be DISMISSED. Defendants do not have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and Recommendation - objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 03/19/2013. (sr1)

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

Teddy Glen Bostic Senior,
Plaintiff

:

Harvest Grove Apartments, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0247

:

v.

:

Judge Sargus

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff Teddy Glen Bostic Senior brings this civil rights action alleging that his
neighbors have harassed him. Subject matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §
1331 and 1343(3). Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is
GRANTED.
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the
complaint, or any portion of it, which 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. See, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The
Magistrate Judge finds that the complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief and,
therefore, recommends dismissal of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that Teddy Glen Bostic Senior that there is a conspiracy to
get him to move from his home at 5371 Harvestwood Lane, Columbus, Ohio. There has

been ongoing bullying of him by the apartment community residents and employees.
He does not know why the people harassing him want him to leave.
When considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe it in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded material allegations in the complaint as true.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705
F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
notice pleading. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The United States Supreme
Court held in Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (June 4, 2007):
. . . Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief are not necessary; the statement need only
"'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.': Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ,
, 127
S.Ct. 1955,
(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).
Moreover, pro se prisoner complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus,
above; Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980).
Analysis. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton,133
S.Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). They may hear only claims arising under the constitution and laws of the United
States. Id. The complaint here does not allege a claim arising under either the
constitution or laws of the United States.

2

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be
DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim under the constitution or laws of the United
States. Defendants do not have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this
Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without
prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve
upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this
Order.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, 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)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
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 waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See
also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report
and Recommendation to each defendant.
s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

3