Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brinson v. Department of Commerce

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

July 23, 2018

Ronald Lee Brinson Plaintiff,
v.
Department of Commerce Defendant.

          ORDER

          Michael R. Barrett United States District Judge

         I. BACKGROUND

         This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 5) thereto.

         On 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).

         Plaintiff 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.[1] (Id. at 4).

         Pursuant 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).

         On 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. ยง 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 leave ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.