United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division
TASHEMA D. SMITH, Plaintiff,
EMPLOYEES who had dealings with her and situation involving CITY OF HUNTINGTON, STATE of WEST VIRGINIA, CABELL COUNTY COMMISSION, FEDERAL BRANCHES and any and all institutes that were involved with these departments, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint on November 20, 2017.
ECF No. 1. After consideration of Defendant's Motion,
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert filed the present Proposed
Findings and Recommendation (PF&R) on February 14, 2018,
in which she recommends that Defendant's Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 7. For the following
reasons, the Court ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES
HEREIN the Magistrate Judge's PF&R.
present Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered
injuries as a result of the harassment of “employees
who had dealings with [Plaintiff's] case and situation
involving [the] City of Huntington, State of West Virginia,
Cabell [sic] County Commission, Federal Branches and any and
all institutes [sic] that were involved with these
departments.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also recites two
federal statutes in her Complaint - 18 U.S.C. § 1514 and
15 U.S.C. § 162d. Id. Because the Magistrate
Judge undertook the complaint screening process after the
Complaint was filed, no summons were issued.
considering Plaintiff's Complaint, the Magistrate Judge
found that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that is
plausible on its face. ECF No. 7. Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's
Standards of Review
Standard of Review of PF&R
reviewing the PF&R, this Court must “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the … [Magistrate
Judge's] proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In
doing so, the Court can “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id. The Court, however, is
not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge to which no objections are made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Screening Standard of Review
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), where a plaintiff seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
screen that plaintiff's complaint and to dismiss the case
if the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.” In order to sufficiently state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Complaint must
include “a short and plain statement of [a]
claim” showing that the plaintiff “is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The claim asserted in
that statement must be “plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's
objections to the present PF&R do not specifically
identify the portion of the proposed findings or
recommendations to which Plaintiff objects. As noted above,
the Court is required to consider de novo only those portions
of the PF&R to which objection is made. Plaintiff's
filed objection does not even mention the Magistrate
Judge's findings or recommendations, but instead simply
reasserts the allegations as set forth in the Complaint.
See ECF No. 8. As the Magistrate Judge's
overarching finding is that Plaintiff has failed to state a
plausible claim, the Court will liberally construe
Plaintiff's objection as an objection to this finding.
careful review of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. First, Plaintiff failed to
provide any factual basis for her claims. She alleges several
times over that she has been harassed, but she fails to plead
“factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citation and quotation
omitted). Not only does Plaintiff not provide the Court with
that requisite factual content, she additionally fails to
identify any specific person or entity against whom she
asserts her claims. Without a plausible factual basis for
Plaintiff's claims and without a specific person or
entity against whom the claims are brought, Plaintiff's
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Accordingly, it must be dismissed at this time.