IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jettie Songo,

Plaintiff

 v.

The Ohio State University,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-510

Judge Economus

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action on June 10, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On June 24, 2011, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation granting Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees, but recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff subsequently filed five additional

documents which further described her allegations. The Court will take these as

objections to the Report and Recommendation, which it will now review de novo

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s complaint, as the Magistrate Judge noted, states:

I was harassed at work and school because of my color. I was called

names such as I look like a whore, I smell, and I am a whore. During my

employment with Ohio State, I was subjected to a hostile working

environment. I complained to my managers about my co-workers

comment concerning my dress, accent, color, and smell, but nothing was

done. The authorities I complained to defended their employees that they

did not do anything; instead I am the one they fired from the employment

on June 12, 2010. After employment with Ohio State, I found out that the

1

Case: 2:11-cv-00510-PCE-MRA Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/15/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
co-worker who were taking the same classes with me spread the above

name calling to other students that do not know me at school. So the

name calling spread from work to classes I was taking such as biology,

chemistry, ecology, and physics to name a few. The name calling spread

from school to outside school such as grocery stores, on the street, and

other employments I had at Kroger and Giant Eagle. Apart from the

above issues, I cannot have employment at other locations because of the

above harassment that have spread. I cannot go place with out other

people harassing me as if they know me.

(Doc. 1-2 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge, citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554,

555 (2007), concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to give The Ohio State University,

the only named defendant, sufficient notice of what claim is being made against it. He

found:

The complaint does not allege that Defendant caused, incited, or

encouraged “name calling” by Plaintiff’s classmates, or by persons outside

the university. She also does not allege that Defendant caused

“harassment” to “spread”. Plaintiff does allege that a former coworker

was at least partly responsible for spreading name calling outside school

and to prospective employers, but she has not named this former

coworker as a defendant. 

(Doc. 5 at 3.)

In the first of her subsequently-filed documents, Plaintiff stated that she “did not

complete my complaint since I was looking for an Attorney to represent me.” (Doc. 7 at

2.) She added a considerable volume of factual allegations, such as that employees and

customers at a nearby Kroger store had made comments about her appearance, smell,

and laundry, and had told her that “people are cooperating with them to see that I do

not have a job and their plan is working” (Doc. 7 at 2), that several lecturers at

Columbus State Community College had advised their students that “I look like a

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00510-PCE-MRA Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/15/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
whore, smell like a whore, and do not have a job” (id. at 4; Doc. 9 at 1), that employees

and police officers at the Karl Road branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library were

similarly advising library patrons (Doc. 8 at 1), and that a police helicopter had been

pursuing her and hovering over her house (Doc. 10 at 1).

Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed documents contained some additional allegations

concerning Defendant The Ohio State University, such as that supervisors and

coworkers at two different student intern positions had harassed her, given her less

desirable work, and called her names. See Doc. 11 at 1-5. Nevertheless, her complaint

fails to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face'” against Defendant The Ohio State University. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, an action has no arguable factual basis when

the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible". 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 52, 32-33 (1992); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.3d 1196, 1199 (6th

Cir. 1990). Much of the material alleged in Plaintiff’s supplemental filings is so wholly

incredible that it is legally frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-329 (1989).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the initial screening Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 5). Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Peter C. Economus - July 15, 2011 

United States District Judge 

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00510-PCE-MRA Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/15/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>