The opinion
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL E. BROWN, JR., )
) CASE NO. 5:19CV2216
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
AKRON PAINT & VARNISH, INC., etal, □
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Defendants. ) AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Michael Elliott Brown, Jr. filed this action against Akron Paint &
Varnish, Inc., Michael Phillips, and Michael Sommers. ECF No. 1. The substantive part of
Plaintiff's Complaint states in its entirety:
Plaintiff now avers that he was wrongfully terminated with
racial/discriminatory motivation by all named Defendants. Further
Plaintiff avers that he experienced lost wages defamation and slander
in this instant matter and will seek punitive damages as well. Equally
as important Plaintiff avers while under State and Federal Question
Defendants coerced and/or falsified witness statements.
Id. at PageID #:3. He indicates he received a Notice of Right to Suit from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) suggesting this is related to his employment. ECF No. 1-1.
He seeks monetary relief. ECF No. | at PageID #: 3.
On October 2, 2019, this Court informed Plaintiff that his Complaint, as written, may be
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 3.
The Court explained that although the standard of review is liberal for pro se pleadings, it
requires more than bare assertions of legal conclusions. Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ.,
(5:19CV2216)
76 F.3d 716, 726-27 (6th Cir. 1996). The Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of
what the Plaintiff's legal claims are and the factual grounds upon which they rest. /d. at 726;
Bassett vy. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). He was told that
his Complaint did not meet these basic pleading requirements. ECF No. 3. The Court allowed
him thirty (30) days from the date of that Order to amend his Complaint to set forth a cognizable
claim for relief. Jd. The Court also informed Plaintiff that if a legally sufficient amended
Complaint was not filed within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed. Catz v.
Chalker, 142 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 1998); Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1112 (6th Cir, 1983).
Although more than thirty days have passed since the Court issued that Order, Plaintiff
has not filed an Amended Complaint nor has he requested additional time to do so. Plaintiffs
Complaint is the only pleading before the Court. As stated in its previous Order, it does not meet
the basic pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 22, 2020 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge