Lewis v. Ohio et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER: Magistrate Judge GRANTS 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, RECOMMENDS DISMISSING this case. Objections to R&R due by 8/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 7/31/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DEMARICK C. LEWIS,
Civil Action 2:17-mc-45
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
OHIO, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Demarick C. Lewis, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the assistance
of counsel, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) with an attached
affidavit titled “Declaration of Nationality,” on July 26, 2017. This matter is now before the
undersigned for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion and the initial screen of Plaintiff’s complaint
(or lack thereof) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial officers who
render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a).
Furthermore, having performed an initial screen, for the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this case.
When a Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In
reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe it in favor of Plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded
factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Plaintiff did not file a complaint in this matter. Instead, he filed a document titled
“Declaration of Nationality – Affidavit of Status – Aboriginal Indigenous.”
Although unclear, it appears that Plaintiff’s Declaration is an attempt to disclaim any connection
to the United States and proclaims his desire to be referred to by his “Moorish appellation,”
which is DemaiRa Meru Yahawashi el. (Id. at 1).
Declaration is as follows:
For illustrative purposes, a portion of the
At base, Plaintiff fails to allege any coherent facts and it is unclear what relief, if any, is
sought. It appears that Plaintiff is simply making a proclamation regarding his beliefs. The
Court thus finds that the Declaration fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. However, having performed an initial screen, for the reasons set forth above, it is
RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 31, 2017
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?