Hill v. Alden et al, No. 2:2019cv01242 - Document 10 (S.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 7 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 7/2/2019. (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
Hill v. Alden et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION John Hill, Plaintiff, V. Eric R. Aiden, ef a/., Defendants. Case No. 2:19-cv-1242 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Vascura OPINION AND ORDER John Hill ("PlalntlfT), who Is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action against The Ohio State University Marching Band, the Alumni Group and Its attorney Eric Alden, and other John and Jane Does, alleging copyright Infringement. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperls and conducted an Initial screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Magistrate Judge Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a claim. EOF No. 7. Plaintiff filed a timely objection. EOF No. 8. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that "[wjlthin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended Dockets.Justia.com disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). PiaintifTs objection to the R&R is not weii-taken. Although difficult to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he failed to state a claim. Upon de novo review, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's weii-reasoned opinion. As the Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff has already brought numerous cases alleging the same allegations, to no avail. See R&R 4-5, ECF No. 7. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that PiaintifFs current Complaint "fails for the same reasons the Sixth Circuit articulated in Hill v. Waters." Id. at 6. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the R&R. ECF No. 7. The Court DISMISSES this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this case. The Court further CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal would not be in good faith and that an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal would be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. nCHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:19-gv-1242 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.