Stephenson v. Hilton et al

Filing 7

OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 4 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/18/17. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

William E. Stephenson,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 2:17-cv-779

Paris Whitney Hilton, et al..

Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Joison
OPINION AND ORDER

William E. Stephenson ("Plalntilf) sues Paris Hilton, NIckl MInaj, and two
"unknown male friends" (collectively, "Defendants") under state law for invasion
of privacy, intentional Infliction of emotional distress, and "infringement of
personal rights." Plaintiffs pro se Complaint alleges that Defendants traveled to
a house in Canal Winchester, Ohio, used "means of deception" to prevent

Plaintifffrom resisting, and then engaged in sexual Intercourse with Plaintiff
without his consent. Compl.

7-8,14, ECF No. 3. Plaintiff further alleges that

Defendants recorded said sexual conduct and released the recordings on the

intemet. Id. HIT 21, 30. Plaintiff seeks almost $430 million dollars in damages.
Magistrate Judge Joison conducted an Initial screen of this case pursuant

to 26 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a report and recommendation ("R&R")
recommending the Court dismiss the Complaint as frivolous. The R&R
concluded that the Complaint lacked an arguable basis in fact. R&R 3, ECF No.
4. Plaintiff has timely objected to the R&R.

Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued the R&R pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b). Pursuant to that rule, the undersigned must determine de novo

any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The undersigned may accept, reject, or modify the
R&R, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
Instructions. Id.

Plaintiff objects to the R&R's conclusion that the Complaint lacks an

arguable basis In fact. He contends on objection that Paris Hilton and NIckl MInaj
were seen by witnesses coming Into his housing unit, were observed by
witnesses leaving the Columbus airport, that Defendants' cell phone data will
show that they were with Plaintiff, and that Defendants "were drinking" with
Plaintiff before he became Impaired. Obj. 2, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff argues further
that Paris Hilton was In disguise wearing a brunette wig, no makeup, and a
jogging suit so that she would not be recognized. Id. at 3. He also states that
Defendants used a strip club on Brice Road In Columbus, Ohio "as back up
story" and says that one of Defendants' "guests" was killed on the night In

question. Id. at 5. Plaintiff argues that the Court should accept all well pleaded

factual allegations^ as true. Id. at 2.
Further, Plaintiff distinguishes this case from the eleven other cases that
Plaintiff has filed In this district In the past ten years, contending that those cases
were dismissed because he Insisted on recovering damages that were precluded

^ Noneof the aforementioned "allegations" was contained In the Complaint.
Case No. 2:17-cv-779

Page 2 of 3

under the Eleventh Amendment. Because Defendants are not state officials, he

argues, the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to this lawsuit. Id. at 4. Plaintiff
seeks discovery to uncover evidence to support his allegations. Id. at 5.
Plaintiffs objections are not well taken. Plaintiff has not contested the
legal standards applied by Magistrate Judge Jolson in the R&R and rather

argues only that the facts alleged in his Complaint are plausible. Upon de novo
review, the Court respectfully disagrees. Plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED,
the R&R is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:17-cv-779

Page 3 of 3