Quartey v. Human Resource, No. 8:2010cv00804 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 04/08/2010. (elts, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 4/9/10)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARY AKU QUARTEY * v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. RWT-10-804 HUMAN RESOURCES * *** MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 30, 2010, Plaintiff, a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland, filed this pro se action using an employment discrimination complaint form. The Complaint is not a model of clarity. It appears that Plaintiff is claiming that in November of 2006, she was promoted as a manager while working for the U.S. Postal Service at a suburban post office. She seemingly contends that she was used by the Postal Service management, terminated from employment, and wants to be assigned [back] to work. (Paper No. 1). Plaintiff provides no grounds for filing the employment discrimination Complaint, nor does she set out the facts of her Complaint, discuss how she has timely exhausted her administrative remedies before filing this case, or provide a relief request. Her attachments shed no light on the omitted information. Indeed, those documents are nonsensical as they are comprised of randomly chosen court forms which reference the amount of $154,000,000.00 and include Plaintiff s request to seek out a death warrant on an individual. Plaintiff has filed neither the civil filing fee nor moved for indigency status. She shall not be required to cure this deficiency. This Court may preliminarily review the Complaint allegations before service of process and dismiss them if satisfied that the Complaint has no factual or legal basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1314 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995). As explained by the Supreme Court in Neitzke: "Examples of [factually baseless lawsuits] are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 328. Plaintiff s Complaint provides no jurisdictional or factual basis for its filing. Her attachments are replete with fanciful illusions. The action shall be dismissed without prejudice for the failure to state a claim and without service of process on Defendant.1 A separate order shall follow. Date: April 8, 2010 _____________/s/ _________________ ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Plaintiff has filed approximately twelve cases in this Court since December 2, 2009. Given the frivolous nature of her filings, the Court concludes that affording Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her Complaint would be an exercise in futility. 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.
