Johnson v. Steiner and Associates et al, No. 2:2018cv00584 - Document 5 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 2 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/1/18. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Johnson v. Steiner and Associates et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Jeffrey Johnson, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:18-cv-584 Stelner and Associates, et al., Judge Michael H. Watson Defendants. Magistrate Judge Deavers OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a pro se Complaint in this case. EOF No, 1. The Complaint expressly invokes this Court's subject matter Jurisdiction. Upon initiai screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Magistrate Judge Deavers issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court dismiss this case for iack of subject matter jurisdiction because in the Compiaint, Plaintiff specificaily stated, "i am citing The Ohio Civii Rights act (1515.39) on retaiiation as the basis for my complaint to the courts." Compi., ECF No. 1-1. As the Compiaint failed to allege a claim under federal law, the R&R correctly concluded that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint.'' Plaintiffobjects to the R&R. ECF No. 4. The objection does not argue that the Magistrate Judge's R&R was incorrect in any way, however. Rather, it purports to be a "revised compiaint," Obj., ECF No. 4, and argues that the revised compiaint brings • Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded in the R&R, ECF No. 2, it appears there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case, and none has been alleged in the Complaint. Dockets.Justia.com federal claims. The "objection" then restates the Complaint in a slightly more robust manner and alleges violations of TitleVII, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Obj., EOF No. 4. Because the R&R is correct that the original Complaint fails to invoke a federal claim or allege diversity jurisdiction, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiffs purported Amended Complaint, filed as an objection to the R&R, does not preclude dismissal of this action. Moniz v. Mines, 92 F. App'x 208 (6th Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court may not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)." (citations omitted)). The Clerk shall terminate this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:18-cv-584 Page 2 of 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.