Johnson v. Steiner and Associates et al
Filing
5
OPINION and ORDER adopting 2 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/1/18. (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
Jeffrey Johnson,
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 2:18-cv-584
Stelner and Associates, et al.,
Judge Michael H. Watson
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Deavers
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a pro se
Complaint in this case. EOF No, 1. The Complaint expressly invokes this Court's
subject matter Jurisdiction.
Upon initiai screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Magistrate Judge Deavers
issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court dismiss this
case for iack of subject matter jurisdiction because in the Compiaint, Plaintiff specificaily
stated, "i am citing The Ohio Civii Rights act (1515.39) on retaiiation as the basis for my
complaint to the courts." Compi., ECF No. 1-1. As the Compiaint failed to allege a
claim under federal law, the R&R correctly concluded that the Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the Complaint.''
Plaintiffobjects to the R&R. ECF No. 4. The objection does not argue that the
Magistrate Judge's R&R was incorrect in any way, however. Rather, it purports to be a
"revised compiaint," Obj., ECF No. 4, and argues that the revised compiaint brings
• Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded in the R&R, ECF No. 2, it
appears there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case, and none has been alleged in the
Complaint.
federal claims. The "objection" then restates the Complaint in a slightly more robust
manner and alleges violations of TitleVII, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Obj., EOF No. 4.
Because the R&R is correct that the original Complaint fails to invoke a federal
claim or allege diversity jurisdiction, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES this
case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiffs purported Amended Complaint, filed as an objection to the
R&R, does not preclude dismissal of this action. Moniz v. Mines, 92 F. App'x 208 (6th
Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court may not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)." (citations omitted)).
The Clerk shall terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:18-cv-584
Page 2 of 2
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?