Grasso v. Romney et al, No. 1:2017cv02599 - Document 2 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated in the Order, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 12/28/2017. (W,CM)

Download PDF
Grasso v. Romney et al Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ROBERT GRASSO, Plaintiff, v. RONALD ROMNEY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2599 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION Pro se Plaintiff Robert Grasso brings this purported civil rights action. There is no statement of claim in the Complaint, or factual allegations of any kind set forth. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid claim, see, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief), nor does it set forth a claim over which Dockets.Justia.com this Court might arguably have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court finds this case is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. See, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan A. Polster Dec. 28, 2017 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.