IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Rhonda Bennett,

Plaintiff

 v.

Verizon Wireless, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-0916

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff Rhonda Bennett brings this action alleging that defendants have been

signing into her cell phone account, using her name and password, then charging her

money she does not owe for items she did not purchase. Plaintiff's motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED. 

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the

complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. See, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The

complaint does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, that it "contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which

the court's jurisdiction depends . . . ." Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge

RECOMMENDS that the complaint be dismissed 

Case: 2:11-cv-00916-GLF-MRA Doc #: 2 Filed: 10/19/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

Analysis. The complaint fails to allege subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts

are courts of limited jurisdiction. They may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction

when authorized by the Constitution or statute. Here no federal claim is pleaded.

Plaintiff and at least some defendants appear to be of Ohio, and the complaint does not

plead that more than $75,000 is in controversy. Consequently, there is no diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be

DISMISSED because it fails to plead subject matter jurisdiction as required by Rule 8(a),

Fed. R. Civ. P. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without

prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve

upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this

Order.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the

Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

Case: 2:11-cv-00916-GLF-MRA Doc #: 2 Filed: 10/19/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See

also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989). 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report

and Recommendation to each defendant.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00916-GLF-MRA Doc #: 2 Filed: 10/19/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>