McConnaughy v. 106.3 The River Radio Network, No. 2:2021cv02236 - Document 6 (S.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 4 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 5/20/2021. (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
McConnaughy v. 106.3 The River Radio Network Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Mark Allen McConnaughy, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-2236 V. Judge Michael H. Watson 106.3 The River Radio Network, Magistrate Judge Deavers Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Magistrate Judge Deavers performed an Initial screen of PlalntlfTs pro se Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2) and Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. R&R, ECF No. 4. Specifically, the R&R noted that Plaintiff marked "federal question" as the basis of the Court's jurisdiction on his Civil Cover Sheet but that Plaintiffs Complaint asserts only a claim under Ohio Revised Code § 2717.01. Id. Plaintiff timely objected to the recommendation. Obj., ECF No. 5. In his objections. Plaintiff does not argue that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over his claim. Rather, he argues that he Is Indigent, physically and mentally handicapped, and without a private attorney. Id. He contends that a dismissal of his claim at this stage of the proceeding may violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Id. Plaintiff requests an opportunity to amend his Complaint but does Dockets.Justia.com not include a proposed Amended Complaint or explain how he would amend the Complaint to properly allege jurisdiction. See id. Upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES Plaintiffs case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Complaint, ECF No. 3, does not assert a claim arising under federal law. Nor does It appear this Court has diversity jurisdiction, see Compl., ECF No. 3 at PAGEID ## 29-30. IT IS SO ORDERED. (CHAEL H. WATSON,JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:21-2236 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.