Carter v. Life of the South et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis & recommending that 2 Complaint be dismissed. Objections to R&R due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 4/3/2013. (kk2)

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

Cardional Anna Vines Carter,
Plaintiff

:

Life of the South, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0301

:

v.

:

Judge Watson

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff Cardional Anna Vines Carter brings this action alleging diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 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 contain a short and plain statement of the
claims pleaded against each defendant and, therefore, recommends dismissal of the
complaint.
The complaint alleges that at some unspecified time in the past, plaintiff Carter
obtained a loan from Eagle Financial Services. She apparently was hospitalized or received

medical treatment at OSU Hospitals, perhaps in November 2011. On an unspecified date,
her granddaughter paid $100 to Eagle Financial Services. Life of the South Insurance
Company apparently gave Carter a federal disclosure statement, perhaps in connection
with the issuance of an insurance policy.
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). 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, 1964
(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). But the complaint must be dismissed if it fails to
give defendants fair notice of the claims pleaded against them. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1964.
Analysis. The complaint fails to give defendants fair notice of the claims alleged
against them. From reading the complaint, it is not possible to determine what each
defendant did to deprive plaintiff of a legal right, what injury she suffered as a result of the
alleged actionable conduct, or when each defendant acted to deprive plaintiff of a legal
right and cause her injury.
2

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be
DISMISSED because it fails to contain a short and plain statement of the claims pleaded
against each defendant. 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