UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

BRYAN KANU,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SIEMENS PLM SOFTWARE, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-38

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. 

Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docs. 8, 13) AND

TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and submitted a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 8) recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. 

Plaintiff timely filed an objection.1

 

 1 The objection argues that Plaintiff should be entitled to keep his in forma pauperis status 

because he plans to use his savings to pay tuition. (Doc. 10 at 13). The Magistrate Judge 

properly concluded that Plaintiff’s desire to “maintain his financial independence and/or to 

preserve his more than eight thousand dollars in savings” is not a sufficient basis to grant him 

pauper status. (Doc. 8 at 3). The objection repeatedly states in conclusory fashion that the 

Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal, but does not offer any substantive, 

persuasive argument that the allegations of the Amended Complaint assert a plausible right to 

relief. Additionally, the objection’s reference to the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is 

improper because that pleading was not filed in accordance with Rule 15. Specifically, the 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) was not filed within the time limits allowed by Rule 

15(a)(1), nor was it filed with leave of Court pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). Accordingly, the Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) shall be STRICKEN from the docket. 
2

After the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, 

Plaintiff moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12). The Magistrate 

Judge subsequently issued a Report and Recommendation recommending Plaintiff’s

motion for leave be denied. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed another objection (Doc. 15), which 

again failed to offer any substantive, persuasive argument that the allegations of his 

proposed Amended Complaint state a plausible right to relief. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the aforementioned Reports and Recommendations should be and are

hereby ADOPTED in their entirety. Accordingly:

1. The Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 8, 13) are ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 10, 15) are OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED based upon a lack of 

indigency;

4. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is STRICKEN from the 

record. The Clerk is ordered to strike Doc. 11;

5. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim under Title VII or other federal law;

6. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is 

DENIED; 

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken 

in good faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in 

the Court of Appeals; and
3

8. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/19/19 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge