Miller v. National Basketball Association

Full title: SELINA R. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jul 27, 2009

Civil Action 2:09-CV-580 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 27, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:09-CV-580.

July 27, 2009

ORDER

EDMUND SARGUS JR., District Judge

On July 22, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge granted plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommended that the action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. No. 2. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objection to that Report and Recommendation, which the Court will consider de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

In the Report and Recommendation, the United States Magistrate Judge noted that plaintiff asserted claims of defamation and invasion of privacy on the part of the National Basketball Association, its Commissioner and Kobe Bryant but concluded that the particular allegations contained in the complaint lack even an arguable basis in fact and are not plausible. Report and Recommendation, p. 2. The United States Magistrate Judge also noted that plaintiff has filed numerous prior actions in both federal and state courts asserting similar pro se claims of slander and invasion of privacy. Id.

In her objections, plaintiff argues only that two of the cases cited by the United States Magistrate Judge were not filed in federal court. Objections, Doc. No. 5. However, the two citations referred to by plaintiff apparently referred to cases addressed by an Ohio Court of Appeals. Miller v. Johnson Angelo, 2002 WL 1578737 (Ohio 10^th Dist.Ct.App. July 18, 2002); Miller v. Ameritech, 2002 WL 433773 (Ohio 10^th Dist.Ct.App. March 21, 2002). Nothing stated by plaintiff in her objections persuade the Court that the reasoning reflected in the Report and Recommendation is in any respect erroneous.

Moreover, plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Doc. No. 6, which appears to be based on the same grounds addressed in her objections, is likewise DENIED.

Accordingly, plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 5, are DENIED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as frivolous or as failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this action. Moreover, the Court concludes that an appeal from the judgment entered herein would not be taken in good faith.