UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MAGGIE DICKERSON, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action 2:18-cv-807 

 v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Plaintiff, an Ohio resident who is prosecuting this matter pro se, brings this civil rights 

action under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

Nos. 1.) Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 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 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. § 1915A(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons 

that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this Plaintiff’s claims for failure 

to assert any claim on which relief may be granted. 
I.

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to 

“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). 

In doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are 

assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from 

filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e)1

 as part of the 

statute, which provides in pertinent part: 

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- 

* * * 

 (B) the action or appeal-- 

 (i) is frivolous or malicious; 

 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . . 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte

dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or 

upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

II.

 Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to decipher. Plaintiff purports to bring claims against the 

state of Ohio and the Ohio Naval Militia for conspiracy to deprive her of her civil rights pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 241. (ECF Nos. 1-1 at 2 & 1-2 at 1.) Her Complaint, however, alleges a 

confusing succession of ongoing laser medical treatments, torture, mutilation, slavery, human 

 

1

Formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 
3 

trafficking, and other wrongs from some time in the 1990s until 2015. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) To 

wit, Plaintiff claims that, in 2015, she received “[t]he last known incident of stroke treatment . . . 

at the Summit County police holding [sic].” (Id.) Plaintiff goes on to allege that her “phone, 

cable, internet lines were hacked” and that “people lived at my house unwanted and trafficked in 

large sums of narcotics.” (Id.) Plaintiff further complains that “people left leads for employers 

and forced my labor regarding those leads” and that unknown individuals altered or broke 

medical equipment and forced her to watch “nicotine adds.” (Id.) 

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, 470-471 (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)). 

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but 

need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555. Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide 

“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of 

a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it 
4 

tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint 

must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint is largely indecipherable and provides no factual content or 

context from which the Court may reasonably infer that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to 

violate Plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, 

the Undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

III. 

 For the reasons explained above, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s 

claims be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

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

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). 

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 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 [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district 
5 

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)). 

 

 

Date: August 9, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE