UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

William E. Stephenson,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:17-cv-779

Paris Whitney Hilton, et al.. Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Joison

OPINION AND ORDER

William E. Stephenson ("Plalntilf) sues Paris Hilton, NIckl MInaj, and two

"unknown male friends" (collectively, "Defendants") under state law for invasion

of privacy, intentional Infliction of emotional distress, and "infringement of

personal rights." Plaintiffs pro se Complaint alleges that Defendants traveled to

a house in Canal Winchester, Ohio, used "means of deception" to prevent

Plaintifffrom resisting, and then engaged in sexual Intercourse with Plaintiff

without his consent. Compl. 7-8,14, ECF No. 3. Plaintifffurther alleges that

Defendants recorded said sexual conduct and released the recordings on the

intemet. Id. HIT 21, 30. Plaintiffseeks almost $430 million dollars in damages.

Magistrate Judge Joison conducted an Initial screen of this case pursuant

to 26 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a report and recommendation ("R&R")

recommending the Court dismiss the Complaint as frivolous. The R&R

concluded that the Complaint lacked an arguable basis in fact. R&R 3, ECF No.

4. Plaintiff has timely objected to the R&R.
Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued the R&R pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b). Pursuant to that rule, the undersigned must determine de novo

any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The undersigned may accept, reject, or modify the

R&R, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with

Instructions. Id.

Plaintiff objects to the R&R's conclusion that the Complaint lacks an

arguable basis In fact. He contends on objection that Paris Hilton and NIckl MInaj

were seen by witnesses coming Into his housing unit, were observed by

witnesses leaving the Columbus airport, that Defendants' cell phone data will

show that they were with Plaintiff, and that Defendants "were drinking" with

Plaintiff before he became Impaired. Obj. 2, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff argues further

that Paris Hilton was In disguise wearing a brunette wig, no makeup, and a

jogging suit so that she would not be recognized. Id. at 3. He also states that

Defendants used a strip club on Brice Road In Columbus, Ohio "as back up

story" and says that one of Defendants' "guests" was killed on the night In

question. Id. at 5. Plaintiffargues that the Court should accept all well pleaded

factual allegations^ as true. Id. at 2.

Further, Plaintiff distinguishes this case from the eleven other cases that

Plaintiff has filed In this district In the past ten years, contending that those cases

were dismissed because he Insisted on recovering damages that were precluded

^Noneof the aforementioned "allegations" was contained In the Complaint.

Case No. 2:17-cv-779 Page 2 of 3
under the Eleventh Amendment. Because Defendants are not state officials, he

argues, the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to this lawsuit. Id. at 4. Plaintiff

seeks discovery to uncover evidence to support his allegations. Id. at 5.

Plaintiffs objections are not well taken. Plaintiff has not contested the

legal standards applied by Magistrate Judge Jolson in the R&R and rather

argues only that the facts alleged in his Complaint are plausible. Upon de novo

review, the Court respectfully disagrees. Plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED,

the R&R is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE as frivolous.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:17-cv-779 Page 3 of 3