Summary
explaining that it would be improper for the court to function as "an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party"
Summary of this case from Sutton v. ParkerOpinion
No. 99-3728.
03-14-2000
Michael THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.J. ROSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY; James M. Griffith, Company Representative, Defendants-Appellees.
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
(The Court's decision is referenced in a "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.)
Before NELSON, BOGGS, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
*1 Michael Thompson, an Ohio litigant proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Thompson filed this action in forma pauperis in the district court against A.J. Rose Company ("A. J. Rose"), his former employer, and James M. Griffith. The complaint alleged that Thompson's employment with A.J. Rose was terminated while Thompson was off sick, that his medical insurance was terminated, and that he did not receive sick pay. Thompson sought reinstatement and back pay. The district court determined that Thompson's complaint lacked an arguable basis in law and dismissed the complaint as frivolous in a judgment entry filed on May 7, 1999. Thompson has filed a timely appeal.
This court reviews de novo a judgment dismissing a suit as frivolous under § 1915(e). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). A complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is appropriate where the complaint is frivolous on its face. See McGore, 114 F.3d at 609.
Upon review, we conclude that Thompson's complaint has no arguable basis in law and was properly dismissed as frivolous by the district court. See id. Even under the most liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), the complaint does not state a federal cause of action or claim for relief. Neither this court nor the district court is required to create Thompson's claims for him. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.1985). To do so would "requir[e the] courts to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff .... [and] would ... transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.