Clayman v. University of Pennsylvania, Trustees of the et al, No. 1:2015cv01390 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2015)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order that this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/2/2015. (S,SR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clayman v. University of Pennsylvania, Trustees of the et al Doc. 5 Dockets.Justia.com deciphered to suggest he was brought up on disciplinaiy charges, cleared of the charges after a heai·ing, but told his conduct was annoying, unusual and lacking in judgment. He does not allege the University imposed sanctions against him . There are no allegations in the case suggesting damages would amount to more than $75,000 as required to establi sh jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Conclusion Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l 9 l 5(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: ()O!fo""' ).-, UJ{f ( 28 U .S.C. § l 9 I 5(a)(3) prov ides : An appeal may not be taken informa pauper is if the trial co mt certifies that it is not taken in good faith. -5-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
