Opinion
24-4007-EFM-GEB
07-15-2024
RAJNINDER JUTLA, Plaintiff, v. ACUMEN ASSESSMENTS, LLC, SCOTT STACY, MICHAEL SEELY, JOHN WHIPPLE, and PETER GRAHAM, Defendant.
ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case comes before the Court upon the written Report and Recommendation of Dismissal (“R&R”) by the assigned Magistrate Judge. Briefly summarizing the comprehensive and well analyzed R&R, the case is recommended for dismissal for failure to properly plead diversity jurisdiction, and more extensively for failure of each of the twelve causes of action named in Plaintiff's Complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Finally, in the event the District Court allowed some of the Complaint to go forward, the R& R recommended denial of the motion to proceed without prepayment of fees.
Plaintiff timely filed her Objections to the R&R. While defending her motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, she indicated that she was willing to drop her request “despite feeling that she is eligible.” She also provided some additional information and argument regarding her satisfaction of the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. The majority of her Objection was directed, as it should have been, to the R&R's analysis of her failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to each of her causes of action. However, her responses primarily were directed to complaints that the Court Clerk's Office did not help her regarding the legal requirements more than it did (the Clerk's Office is, of course, prevented from providing legal advice), and to arguments nonresponsive to the legal deficiencies noted in the R&R.
Upon review of the R&R and the Plaintiff's Objections, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown any legal reasons why the pleading deficiencies in her Complaint can survive the conclusion that each cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Nor does the Court find that giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Complaint would be likely to resolve those deficiencies. Therefore the Court adopts in full the excellent reasoning of the R&R, and pursuant thereto orders that the Complaint and each of its causes of action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
As a result of that order, the request to proceed without prepayment of fees, and the recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to properly plead diversity jurisdiction, is moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court adopts the R&R, and orders that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This case is now closed.