United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Michael R. Barrett United States District Judge
matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 4) and
Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 5) thereto.
February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se
complaint (Doc. 3) against the Ohio Department of Commerce.
On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 1), which the Magistrate Judge
granted on February 14, 2018. (Doc. 2).
asserts this court has subject matter jurisdiction over his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). (Doc. 3,
at 2). In relevant part, Plaintiff's complaint states:
On or about Jan[uary] 29th, 2018, I . . . [received] from
Greater Cincinnati Behavioral 2525 Victory Parkway 45206 a
form from the Unclaimed Funds w[ith] the amount of 22.15
Million Dollars and no cents.
At the same time while watching [the] State of the Union
speech by President Donald Trump I [received] a check for
$25.57 cents under Gross amount.
I have been [waiting] (18) Eighteen years for this Money I
did not even know I had it piled like that, but I worked for
every Dollar of that money. And I also earned the Unclaimed
Fund Co. found money I did not receive off and on. I spent
over 36 years in prison for crime I didn't do, but when I
set my mind to do something, I Get The Job Done!
(Id. at 3). Plaintiff did not indicate what relief
he desired from this Court. (Id. at 4).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge
performed a sua sponte review of Plaintiff's
complaint to determine if the complaint, or any portion of
it, should be dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness,
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
relief. Upon conclusion of the review, the Magistrate Judge
issued the R&R and recommended the case be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
(Doc. 4, at 4). The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff
entirely failed to allege any conduct by the Department of
Commerce to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim or any
other claim under federal law. (Id. at 4).
March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed the objection (Doc. 5) to the
R&R. In relevant part, the objection states:
I [felt] a great [defamation] of [character] was perpetrated
here when I was searching for unclaimed funds I might have
missed over the years. After 18 years, 22.15 look like 22.15
million, was only 22 dollars and 15 cents. I [received] from
the Department of Commerce a form in December. I had it sent
to the Greater Cincinnati Behavioral. When I filled out the
form I sent it back to them to [receive] a check . . . I went
to the agency to receive my check [and] got my mail to find
the envelope was open by my payee sherry, I ask[ed] her why
did she open my mail and she stated, “I wanted
to.” If mail doesn't come from SSI she has no right
to open any other mail of mine . . .
At the same time the State of the Union was on t.v. and the
United States was in debt and the president robbed the nation
and took this money thinking it was 22.15 million but in
reality it was 22 dollars and 15 cents.
It [i]s clear to see this action is not delusional in the
form of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights complaint in
which I'm asking the court for the 22.15 million for
[defamation] of [character], something is fish[y] here, and I