From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dotson v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sep 22, 2014
Civil Action 2:14-cv-1605 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1605

09-22-2014

Natalie M. Dotson, Plaintiff v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant


Judge Watson

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff Natalie M. Dotson, a patient at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED.

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the complaint, or any portion of it, which 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. See, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The Magistrate Judge finds that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief and, therefore, recommends dismissal of the complaint.

The complaint states that Ms. Dotson seeks to reopen a 1978 cold case abduction investigation. The complaint fails to set out a legal basis for this action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The complaint further fails to set out facts giving defendant fair notice of plaintiff's claims. When considering whether a complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded material allegations in the complaint as true. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for notice pleading. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The United States Supreme Court held in Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007):

. . . Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief are not necessary; the statement need only "'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.': Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Moreover, pro se complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980). Nonetheless, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

Analysis. The complaint does not state the legal basis for a claim against the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Further, there are no factual allegations in the complaint that explain why plaintiff believes the Federal Bureau of Investigation has denied her any right arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant does not have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report and Recommendation to the defendant and to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.

s/Mark R. Abel

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Dotson v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sep 22, 2014
Civil Action 2:14-cv-1605 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2014)
Case details for

Dotson v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

Case Details

Full title:Natalie M. Dotson, Plaintiff v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 22, 2014

Citations

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1605 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2014)