Kanu v. Siemens PLM Software et al, No. 1:2018cv00037 - Document 12 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 8 ) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 7/31/18. (jlm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Kanu v. Siemens PLM Software et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION BRYAN KANU, Plaintiff, vs. SIEMENS PLM SOFTWARE, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : Case No. 1:18-cv-37 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 8) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on February 8, 2018, submitted a Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 8). Plaintiff timely filed an objection (“Objection”). 1 1 The Objection argues that Plaintiff should be entitled to keep his in forma pauperis status because he plans to use his savings to pay tuition. (Doc. 10 at 6-7). The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Plaintiff’s desire to “maintain his financial independence and/or to preserve his more than eight thousand dollars in savings” is not a sufficient basis to grant him pauper status. (Doc. 8 at 3). The Objection repeatedly states in conclusory fashion that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal, but does not offer any substantive, persuasive argument that the allegations of the Amended Complaint assert a plausible right to relief. Additionally, the Objection’s reference to the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is improper because that pleading was not filed in accordance with Rule 15. Specifically, the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) was not filed within the time limits allowed by Rule 15(a)(1), nor was it filed with leave of Court pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) shall be STRICKEN from the docket. Dockets.Justia.com As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Supplemental Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly: 1. The Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED based upon a lack of indigency; 3. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is STRICKEN from the record. The Clerk is ordered to strike Doc. 11; 4. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Title VII or other federal law; 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals; and 6. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 7/31/18 Timothy S. Black 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.