Opinion
Civil Action 2:10-CV-115.
February 26, 2010
ORDER
On February 10, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. No. 2. This matter is 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); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This Court has reviewed the record and agrees that the complaint does not present a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff's objections, Doc. No. 5, do not offer any persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary.
Plaintiff also asks, in the alternative, for leave to amend the complaint. However, the claims apparently sought to be asserted by plaintiff, i.e., "conspiracy, defamation and character to the business and family name," Doc. No. 5, p.l, do not state a claim arising under federal law. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (injury to reputation is not a liberty interest protected by the United States Constitution.)
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT. Moreover, the Court concludes that appeal from the judgment entered in this action should not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).