# Fleurimond

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11361335

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricardo Fleurimond v. Fidelity Investments, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** May 14, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11361335

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION ~- CINCINNATI
RICARDO FLEURIMOND, Case No. 1:25-cv-246
Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 10). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 11) to the Report and
Recommendation. Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Transfer (Doc.
8) has since been denied as moot by the Magistrate Judge. (See Order, Doc. 12.) This matter
is now ripe for the Court's review.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court conducts de novo review of any portions of the Report and
Recommendation properly objected to by a party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections,” however, “does not
meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to
object.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Arteaga v. Cinram-
Technicolor, No. 3:19-CV-349, 2022 WL 1256659, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2022)
(distinguishing between properly specified objections and general objections).

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz prepared a Report and Recommendation that
recommends dismissing the claims within Plaintiff's pro se Complaint. (Report, Doc. 10.)
Now, Plaintiff objects to dismissal of certain claims. On the whole, Plaintiff’s Objections
(Doc. 11) convey a common theme: the Complaint should be liberally construed in light
of Plaintiff's pro se status. At the same time, however, the Sixth Circuit has demarcated
certain “limits” to this command of liberal construction. Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x
579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). For instance, a court need not “conjure allegations on a litigant’s
behalf, and a pleading must provide notice to the opposing party of the relief sought.” Id.
(citing Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Vector Rsch., Inc. v. Howard &
Howard Attorneys P.C., 76 F.3d 692, 697 (6th Cir. 1996)). With this framework in mind, the
Court addresses Plaintiff's objections in turn.
i. Breach of Contract Claim
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of
contract because the Complaint merely makes a “threadbare assertion” about a contract
claim without pleading the required elements. (Report, Doc. 10, Pg. ID 16-17.) Plaintiff
objects to this conclusion but relies on additional allegations not included within the
Complaint. (Objections, Doc. 11, Pg. ID 23-24.) The allegations within the operative
Complaint frame the Court's inquiry at this juncture. And, after considering the operative
Complaint’s allegations, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
they fail to satisfy the required elements for plausibly stating a breach of contract claim:
“(1) a contract existed; (2) the plaintiff performed under the contract; (3) the defendant
breached the contract; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages from the breach.” Dean v,

Chamberlain Univ., LLC, No. 21-3821, 2022 WL 2168812, at *2 (6th Cir. June 16, 2022) (citing
Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2006) (interpreting Ohio law)). Thus,
Plaintiff's first objection is overruled.
ii. Truth in Lending Act Claim
Plaintiff next argues that the Magistrate Judge overlooked key allegations in the
Complaint and did not apply a liberal, pro-se pleading standard. (Objections, Doc. 11, Pg.
ID 24-25.) Though Plaintiff brings up additional allegations as to the Truth in Lending
Act claim, not all of these allegations are found within the four corners of the Complaint.
And, while Plaintiff did cite to particular provisions of the Truth in Lending Act in the
Complaint’s jurisdictional section, the Complaint lacks adequate factual allegations to
state a plausible claim under these provisions. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Complaint fails to explain how Defendants
violated the Truth in Lending Act or the specific disclosures that Defendants failed to
make. (Report, Doc. 10, Pg. ID 17.) Thus, Plaintiff’s second objection is overruled.
iii. Trademark Claim
The Magistrate Judge found that, even liberally construing the Complaint, Plaintiff
failed to provide any factual allegations as to why he would be entitled to relief regarding
his trademark claim. (Report, Doc. 10, Pg. ID 19.) In an attempt to rebut this finding,
Plaintiff once again points to allegations not included in the Complaint. Although
Plaintiff suggests that “additional factual details about specific instances of infringement
could readily be developed through discovery” (Id. at Pg. ID 27), the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Complaint—as it stands—fails to plausibly

allege a trademark-based claim. This objection is therefore overruled.
iv. Allegations of Harm
Plaintiff next objects that the Magistrate Judge did not properly consider the
alleged harms in the Complaint. (Objections, Doc. 11, Pg. ID 28-30.) But, the Court does
not find this argument persuasive. At the end of the day, a plaintiff must put forth
sufficient factual allegations to plausibly state a claim for relief. Plaintiff's objections as
to the alleged harms do not demonstrate how any of the previously discussed claims
were sufficiently alleged in this Complaint. Thus, this final objection is overruled.
Vv. Leave to Amend
In the event that the Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint inadequate, Plaintiff seeks
leave to amend. (Objections, Doc. 11, Pg. ID 32-33.) Plaintiff does not provide a proposed
amended complaint. “The problem with the lack of a motion or proposed amendment is
that[,] without viewing the proposed amendment, it is impossible for the district court to
determine whether leave to amend should [be] granted.” United States ex rel. Harper v.
Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist., 739 F. App’x 330, 335 (6th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up);
see also Kuyat v. BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., 747 F.3d 435, 444 (6th Cir. 2014) (“A request
for leave to amend almost as an aside to the district court ina memorandum in opposition
to the defendant's motion to dismiss is not a motion to amend.”) (cleaned up). However,
Plaintiff does hint at additional factual allegations. (See Objection, Doc. 11, Pg. ID 30-33.)
“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear

on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Newberry v.
Silverman, 789 F.3d 636, 646 (6th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, if Plaintiff desires to amend the Complaint, any motion to amend □
along with any proposed amended complaint — must be filed within thirty (30) days of
this Order. See Barnett v. Kroger Co., No. 1:22-CV-544, 2023 WL 5899836, at *6 (S.D. Ohio
Sept. 11, 2023).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 11) are not well taken and are therefore
OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED WITH
MODIFICATIONS;
(2) This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(3) Plaintiff shall have the opportunity to file a motion to amend the Complaint;
however, any such motion must be paired with a proposed amended
complaint and must be filed within thirty (30) days of this Order; and
(4) The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave
to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma
pauperis in the Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Mad. WHS fehy
By: ‘ 1
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11361335. Public record. Not legal advice.