Marks v. 3M CO, No. 2:2021cv00905 - Document 11 (S.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 9 the Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 5/4/2021. (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
<![CDATA[
Marks v. 3M CO Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Chester Lee Marks, Case No. 2:21-cv-905 Plaintiff, Judge Michael H. Watson V. Magistrate Judge Vascura 3M CO., Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER On April 12, 2021, Magistrate Judge Vascura issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this case be dismissed and that PiaintifTs motion to appoint counsel, EOF No. 7, be denied as moot. R&R, ECF No. 9. The R&R analyzed both the original Complaint, ECF No. 1, as well as the Amended Complaint, which at that time had been filed as an attachment to PiaintifTs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5-1.^ Magistrate Judge Vascura noted that the Amended Complaint was "substantively identical" to the original Complaint, except that the names of Defendants were changed slightly. R&R 2, ECF No. 9. The R&R went on to find that "[i]n neither the original nor the Amended Complaint does Plaintiff make any allegations in reference to any of the named Defendants, other than to allege that'Defendants, 3M Co. consist of foreign companies operating [in] the United States of America. Their action has caused many human body weakness [sic], infected with PerThe Amended Complaint was subsequently docketed at ECF No. 10. Dockets.Justia.com and polyfluoroalkyi substances and damages to the bloodstream.'" Id.(quoting Compl. If 5, ECF No. 1). The R&R recommended dismissal of Plaintiffs claims because he failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, he lacked standing, and this case was improperly venued in this District. Id. at 4-5. Magistrate Judge Vascura notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C.ยง 636(b)(1). Id. at 5-6. She also specifically advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days would result in a waiver of both the right to de novo review by the District Judge and the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R. Id. at 6. The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no objections were filed. Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 7, is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON,JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:21-cv-905 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.
