United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTOPHER H. STEGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Robert Eugene Hulan, pro se, filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1]. Because I
conclude his complaint does not state a claim for which
relief can be granted, I RECOMMEND this
action be DISMISSED and the application to
proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED
Responsibility to Review Complaint
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is responsible for
screening all actions filed by plaintiffs-including
non-prisoners seeking in forma pauperis status-and
for dismissing any action or portion thereof which is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007) and La Fountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d
944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013); Smith v.
Lindamood, No. 1:16-cv-86, 2017 WL 444830, at *2 (M.D.
Tenn. Feb. 2, 2017); Johns v. Maxey, No.
2:07-cv-238, 2008 WL 4442467, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 25,
2008) (Greer, J.).
standard required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to properly
state a claim for which relief can be granted is the same
standard required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Brand v.
Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008);
accord Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437
(6th Cir. 2007). In determining whether a party
has set forth a claim in his complaint for which relief can
be granted, all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in
the complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, 555 (2007).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 569-70.) Further, a pro se pleading must
be liberally construed and “held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Nevertheless, the
complaint must be sufficient “to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, ”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, Wyson Corp. v.
APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267, 270 (6th Cir. 2018)
("The question is whether [plaintiff's] complaint
contain[s] factual allegations that, when accepted as true,
set out plausible claims for relief.") This requirement
simply means that the factual content pled by a plaintiff
must permit a court “to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
has submitted a form complaint in which he names "COFFEE
COUNTY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and AGENTS" as defendants
[Doc. 2, Complaint]. He lists the jurisdictional statutes, 28
U.S.C. § 1331, 1332, and 1334, as the sole basis for his
claim [Id.]. His only factual allegation is
"[C]limate damged [sic] by COFFEE COUNTY MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION and AGENTS." [Id.]. These
allegations are not sufficient to state a claim for which
relief can be granted as they give defendants no notice of
the claim brought against them or the factual basis for that
claim. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that
this action be DISMISSED without prejudice
and the application for in forma pauperis status be
DENIED as moot.
 Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be served and filed within fourteen (14)
days after service of a copy of this recommended disposition
on the objecting party. Such objections must conform to the
requirements of Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Failure to file objections within the time
specified constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal the
District Court's order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 88 L.Ed.2d 435, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985). The district court
need not provide de novo review where objections to this
report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive or
general. Mira v. Marshall,806 F.2d 636