Stringer v. First Student, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
VICKIE M. STRINGER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case Number 2:25-cv-1055
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
FIRST STUDENT, INC., et al., 	Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on an Order and Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on October 27, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff Vickie M. Stringer filed a Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1) and attached a Complaint (ECF No. 1-2). She also
filed a supplement to her IFP Motion. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 7.) Her Complaint alleges that Defendants
First Student, Inc., Lorrie McCoy, and First Advantage Corporation discriminated against her
because of her disability, fraudulently altered her background check report, and conspired to
violate her civil rights. (ECF No. 1-2.) She brings seven claims against Defendants: (I) violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (II) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (3) (III) violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; (IV) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (V) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1961 et seq.; (VI) promissory estoppel; and (VII) intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id.)
The Magistrate Judge granted Ms. Stringer’s IFP Motion. (ECF No. 5, PageID 42.) By
initial screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that Plaintiff’s Counts III and VI should proceed for further development, but Counts I, II, IV, V,
Case: 2:25-cv-01055-EAS-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

and VII should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Id. PageID 45.)
Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in
the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Ms. 	Stringer 	was 	advised 	of 	her 	right 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Order 	and 	Report 	and
Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 5, PageID 52.) Ms.
Stringer did not object to the Order and Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	and 	AFFIRMS 	the 	Order 	and 	Report 	and
Recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Counts I, II, IV, V, and VII against Defendants.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 3124 Genevieve Drive,
Columbus, OH 43219.
This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/3/2025 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-01055-EAS-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>