Danielle LaTriece Tucker v. PayPal

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio overruled Danielle LaTriece Tucker’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and adopted the recommendation in full. The court dismissed her pro se complaint against PayPal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim and failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo determination of the portions specifically objected to and may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation.
2. A complaint must provide fair notice of the factual and legal grounds supporting the claims, and a complaint that fails to identify a claim or explain how the defendant's conduct was wrongful may be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
3. A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action that is frivolous or malicious or that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4. A plaintiff must explain the basis for the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction; failure to do so supports dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should overrule the objection and adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint after de novo review.
2. Whether the complaint and objection stated a legally cognizable claim with fair notice of the factual and legal grounds for relief.
3. Whether the plaintiff adequately established subject matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed