UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

BRYAN KANU,

Case No. 1:18-cv-38

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v. 

SIEMENS PLM, et al., 

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed two motions seeking leave to file two separate 

complaints in this Court in forma pauperis, or without payment of the requisite filing fee

that is ordinarily required to file a case in this court.

1

 (Doc. 1). On January 29, 2018, the 

undersigned conditionally granted Plaintiff leave to initiate both cases in forma pauperis, 

but simultaneously issued an order requiring Plaintiff to “show cause” why his in forma 

pauperis status should not be revoked and denied. Additionally, the undersigned filed a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in each of the two cases recommending that the 

initial complaints be dismissed, without prejudice to refile a first amended complaint to 

correct the glaring deficiencies of the related complaints.

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed responses to the “show cause” orders issued 

in each of the two cases, as well as amended complaints in both cases that purported to 

cure the fatal deficiencies of the initial complaints. On February 8, 2018, the undersigned

 

1A second case was opened as Kanu v. Seimens PLM Software, Case No. 1:18-cv-37.

Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 654
2

recommended that the prior conditional grant of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be 

revoked, and that Plaintiff be required to pay the requisite $400 filing fee in order to 

proceed in this Court. (Doc. 8). The Supplemental R&R further concluded that Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint failed to allege sufficient factual content to state a plausible 

discrimination claim. (Id. at 6). Notably, the undersigned filed virtually the same 

Supplemental R&R in Case No. 1:18-cv-37. 

In Case No. 1:18-cv-37, the presiding district judge adopted the Supplemental 

R&R on July 31, 2018, thereby terminating that case. (See id., at Doc. 12). Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis to the Sixth Circuit was denied, first by this 

Court, and subsequently by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds that there was 

“no non-frivolous basis on which to appeal the district court’s dismissal of Kanu’s 

amended complaint.” (Id., at Doc. 18 at 3; see also Case No. 1:18-cv-37, Doc. 17).

While the February 2018 Supplemental R&R in this case has been pending, 

Plaintiff filed Objections to that Supplemental R&R as well as a second amended 

complaint. (Doc. 11). Six months later, on August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking 

leave to file a third amended complaint. In his most recent motion, Plaintiff acknowledges 

that he previously attempted to file a second amended complaint in Case No. 1:18-cv-37, 

but that Judge Black “ordered Plaintiff’s 2nd Amended Complaint...to be stricken from the 

record because the complaint was not ‘filed with leave of court pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).’” 

(Doc. 12 at 1). Plaintiff explains that he has filed his motion seeking leave to file a third 

amended complaint in the above-captioned case in order to avoid the same procedural 

bar.

Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 655
3

Regardless of Plaintiff’s attempt to cure his procedural error by filing a motion 

seeking leave to amend, the undersigned continues to find both the second and third 

proposed amendments to Plaintiff’s complaint to be deficient for all the reasons previously 

stated in the Supplemental R&R filed on February 8, 2018. In addition, as previously 

explained, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked. Last but not least, 

justice simply does not require this Court to permit a pro se plaintiff unlimited opportunities 

to amend his complaint, in hopes of eventually stating some claim.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Supplemental R&R filed on February 8, 

2018 and for the additional reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT

Plaintiff’s most recent motion seeking leave to further amend his complaint (Doc. 12) be 

DENIED.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 656
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

BRYAN KANU,

Case No. 1:18-cv-38

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v. 

SIEMENS PLM, et al., 

Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of 

the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of 

the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of 

the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) 

DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 657