Bruseau v. Bessey et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 4 in that the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's case. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 6/28/13. (sem1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TY-COON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-cv-408
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel

v.
JOHN BESSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s May 6, 2013
Initial Screening Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 4.) In that filing, the Magistrate Judge
conducted an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
recommended that the Court dismiss this action for failure to assert any claim upon which this
Court could grant relief. The Magistrate Judge explained that the complaint “pleads no facts and
gives no explanation of why [P]laintiff believes he is entitled to relief from [D]efendants.” (ECF
No. 4, at Page ID # 15.) The Initial Screening Report and Recommendation also advised the
parties that the failure to object within fourteen days would 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.” (Id. at Page ID # 16.) Rather than file an objection, Plaintiff instead filed an amended
complaint that also fails to plead any facts. (ECF No. 6.) The amended complaint fails to
preclude the dismissal of this action. Moniz v. Hines, 92 F. App’x 208, 211-12 (6th Cir. 2004).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections

1

have been filed, that the time for filing such objections has expired, and that the Magistrate
Judge’s reasoning is correct, the Court ADOPTS the Initial Report and Recommendation and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2