1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY JOHNSON, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-584 

 v. Judge Michael H. Watson 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

STEINER AND ASSOCIATES, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings 

this action against Defendants Steiner and Associates, Donna Gorsky, and Austin Ellsworth. 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 

forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (ECF No. 1.) All judicial officers who render services in 

this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This matter is also 

before the Court sua sponte for an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s 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. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, it is 

RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.

 Congress has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim 

upon which relief maybe granted. 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). A 

complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, 

the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th 

Cir. 2010) (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure 

to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). 

 In addition, a federal court has limited subject matter jurisdiction. “The basic statutory 

grants of federal court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which 

provides for ‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for ‘[d]iversity of 

citizenship’ jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). Federal-question 

jurisdiction is invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under” the federal laws, the 

Constitution, or treaties of the United States. Id. (citation omitted). For a federal court to have 

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(a), there must be complete diversity, which means 

that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant, and the amount in 

controversy must exceed $75,000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 

II. 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety states as follows: 

On Thursday, December 1st 2017 I was summoned by head of Security Justin 

Ellsworth and head of Human Resources Donna Gorsky to meet in the offices of 
3 

Steiner and Associates. I was under the belief that I was being given the results of 

a complaint that I had filed but I was actually being terminated from my 

employment as Security Officer for Easton Security. The only reason that was 

given for my termination was that 

1. I had to use the restroom that was outside of my assigned area and 

2. poor performance. 

Since the restroom was actually within my assigned area and that I had been given 

no formal write ups for any performance issues, I believe that my termination was 

Trumped [sic] up and due to complaints that I had filed with Ms[.] Gorsky 

concerning hostile working condition and the three complaints I had filed with the 

Ohio Civil Rights Comission [sic]. 

Therefore I am citing The Ohio Civil Rights act [sic] (1515.39) on retaliation as 

the basis for my complaint to the courts[.] 

(ECF No. 1-1 at PAGEID # 7.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $1 million. 

(Id. at PAGEID # 8.) 

 The Complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the 

court’s jurisdiction[,]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), because Plaintiff has failed to allege a claim 

arising under federal law and it does not appear that complete diversity exists. Plaintiff 

specifically asserts that the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 (“OCRA”), serves as 

the basis for his Complaint. (ECF No. 1-1 at PAGEID # 7.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim does 

not state a claim arising under federal law. Id.; cf. Moorer v. Summit Cty. Dep’t of Job and 

Family Servs., No. 5:10-cv-457, 2011 WL 2746098, at *10 (N.D. Ohio July 14, 2011) 

(identifying claims under the Ohio Civil Rights Act as state law claims and declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over these claims). 

 Moreover, Plaintiff cannot successfully invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction with 

regard to his state-law OCRA claim because there does not appear to be complete diversity of 

citizenship. As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that 

diversity of citizenship exists. Glob. Tech., Inc. v. Yubei (Xinxiang) Power Steering Sys. Co., 
4 

Ltd., 807 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2015) (“As always, the party invoking federal jurisdiction has 

the burden to prove that jurisdiction.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Elite Health Ctrs., Inc., 

No. 16-cv-12380, 2016 WL 4073561, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 2016) (“The citizenship of the 

parties is a jurisdictional fact in diversity actions. The burden is on the plaintiff––the party 

invoking federal jurisdiction––to plead and prove such facts.”). Here, Plaintiff and Defendant 

Steiner and Associates are both Ohio residents. (ECF No. 1-1 at PAGEID ## 4–5 (listing 

Plaintiff’s address in Columbus, Ohio, and identifying Defendant Steiner and Associates’ 

address as 160 Easton Town Center, Columbus, Ohio 43219).) Plaintiff does not assert that 

Defendants Gorsky and Ellsworth are citizens of another state and Plaintiff specifically failed to 

invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at PAGEID # 5 (checking only the 

box entitled “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3)” as the basis of subject matter jurisdiction while leaving 

unchecked the box entitled “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)”).) Based on this record, Plaintiff has 

not demonstrated that diversity of citizenship exists. Accordingly, the Undersigned cannot 

discern a basis for federal jurisdiction. 

III. 

 For the reasons explained above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 
5 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

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

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

and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l 

Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [th defendant’s] ability to appeal the 

district court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .” (citation 

omitted)). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 

Date: July 2, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE