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.

Harris v. Stasson

April 30, 2010

WALTER E. HARRIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHELLEY A. STASSON AND PATRICK GORESH, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Janet T. Neff United States District Judge

HON. JANET T. NEFF

OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated the present action, making statements about defendants and others regarding his former employment and an earlier lawsuit. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who performed an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 13), as supplemented (Dkts 14-15). Plaintiff has also since filed a "Motion for Order for Health and Dental Insurance" (Dkt 16).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. Plaintiff's objections mirror the character of his complaint in that he makes only broad statements about the benefits he enjoyed during his former employment. His objections do not demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Rather, as the Magistrate Judge determined, even a liberal construction of plaintiff's complaint leads to the conclusion that the allegations therein fail to state a legal claim. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (indicating that FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and giving the defendants "fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.").*fn1

The Court therefore denies the objections, approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court, and denies as moot plaintiff's Motion for Order for Health and Dental Insurance. An Order of Dismissal will be entered consistent with this Opinion.

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. ...


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.