United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
VICTORIA FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
A. Sargus, Jr. Judge.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHELSEY M. VASCURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Robert Johnson, a New York resident proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, previously filed the following four
cases in this Court:
(1) Johnson v. Nationwide Insurance, No.
2:19-cv-1130, (S.D. Ohio filed Mar. 26, 2019) (“The
(2) Johnson v. Coe, No. 2:19-cv-2428 (S.D. Ohio
filed June 10, 2019) (“The 2428 Case);
(3) Johnson v. Smith, No. 2:19-cv-2490 (S.D. Ohio
filed June 14, 2019) (“The 2490 Case”); and
(4) Johnson v. Abel, No. 2:19-cv-2865 (S.D. Ohio
filed June 27, 2019) (“The 2865 Case”).
these cases was dismissed for failure to state a claim
following an initial screen conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). The undersigned incorporates by reference the
July 23, 2019 Order and Report and Recommendation, which
summarizes Plaintiff's history of filing substantially
similar lawsuits against insurance companies arising out of
the same 2017 car accident. (See The 2865 Case, ECF
No. 5.) In the Court's Opinion and Order adopting the
Report and Recommendation in The 2865 Case, the Court
declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigator and enjoined him
from filing any new actions without first (a) submitting a
certification from an attorney who is licensed to practice in
this Court or the State of Ohio, stating that there is a good
faith basis for the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert; or (b)
tendering a proposed complaint for review by this Court prior
to the actual filing of the complaint in the Court's
docketing system. (Id. at ECF No. 8.)
instant action was transferred to this Court from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and the Transfer Order observes that Plaintiff once again is
seeking to litigate the same claims that have already been
repeatedly dismissed by this Court and others. (ECF No. 5.)
The undersigned's review of the Complaint in this action
reveals that transferor court accurately characterizes
Plaintiff's Complaint as yet again advancing
substantially similar claims against insurance companies
arising out of the same 2017 car accident. More specifically,
Plaintiff once again names Victoria Fire and Casualty Company
and Nationwide Insurance Company as Defendants.
Court GRANTS Plaintiff's requests to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) All judicial
officers who render services in this action shall do so as if
the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This
matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of
Plaintiff's Complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaints, or any portion of them, that is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). For the reasons set forth in the
undersigned's July 23, 2019 Order and Report and
Recommendation (The 2865 Case, ECF No. 5), incorporated by
reference, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court
DISMISS this action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party
may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report,
file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made, together with supporting authority for the
objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the District Judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a
waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District
Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).