Parrish v. Fabbro/Scholastic Book Fairs Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Kevin Leroy Parrish,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:24cv535
Dennis Fabbro/Scholastic 	Judge Michael R. Barrett
Book Fairs Inc.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s November 7, 2024
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. (Doc. 5). The Magistrate Judge explained
that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s pro se claims arise
under state law and there is no complete diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 5, PAGEID 25).
On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed written objections to the Report. (Doc. 13).1
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received
on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” 	Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	However, “[t]he objections must be
1
Plaintiff’s filing is titled “Reply to Motion of Extension,” but the substance of the
document makes it clear that he is objecting to R&R.
Case: 1:24-cv-00535-MRB-SKB Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and
contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Slater v. Potter,
28 F. App’x 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory
objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and it tantamount to a
complete failure to object.”).
In his objections, Plaintiff describes the procedural history of proceedings before
the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. (Doc. 13, PAGEID 45-46).
Plaintiff also describes his difficulty in obtaining legal representation. (Doc. 13, PAGEID
46). Finally, Plaintiff repeats his request for an award of damages based on lost wages
and “hardships; mental stress, financial.” (Doc. 13, PAGEID 47).
To the extent Plaintiff challenges an adverse decision of the Ohio Unemployment
Compensation Review Commission: “When a state provides for appellate review of a
state administrative agency's decision, federal district courts have neither original
jurisdiction nor removal jurisdiction over the review proceedings.” Daniels v. New Prime,
Inc., No. 1:13-CV-402, 2013 WL 4776544, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 6, 2013), report and
recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 5470162 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2013). To the extent
that Plaintiff brings a wrongful termination claim, he does not set forth allegations which
would support the basis for any legal theory; and therefore, he has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Accord Medina v. Eugenio Painting Co., 90 F. App'x
910, 911 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Saines v. Aging Comm'n of the Mid-S., No. 2:24-CV-
02248-SHL-CGC, 2025 WL 241123, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2025) (dismissing case
for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff did not “offer any other basis for a
determination of wrongful termination such as retaliation, termination in breach of an
Case: 1:24-cv-00535-MRB-SKB Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
employment contract or termination for exercising workers compensation rights, rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Family Medical Leave Act.”).
Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge’s November 7, 2024 R&R (Doc. 5)
is ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED with
prejudice for failing to state a claim for relief. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation would not be taken in good faith; and Plaintiff is DENIED leave to
appeal in forma pauperis.
This matter shall be CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00535-MRB-SKB Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>