Carletti et al v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers et al, No. 4:2008cv02242 - Document 2 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Peter C. Economus on 11/18/2008. (H,LA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carletti et al v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers et al Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO R. CARLETTI, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. U.S. ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 4:08 CV 2242 JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On September 22, 2008, plaintiff pro se R. Carletti filed this in forma pauperis action against the U.S. Army Corp. Of Engineers and the U.S. Government. The complaint does not set forth a coherent claim for relief. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). complaint does not contain Even liberally construed, the allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim, or indeed, even a claim over which the court has jurisdiction. This action is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999). Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Peter C. Economus - 11/18/2008 PETER C. ECONOMUS 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.
