Tucker v. PayPal

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Danielle LaTriece Tucker,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:25-cv-1177
Judge James L. Graham
v. 	Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
PAYPAL,
Defendant.
Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court on an Order and Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on October 14, 2025. See Doc. 3. The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screen
of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and recommended that it be dismissed.
Plaintiff timely objected.
For the reasons stated below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection and adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against PayPal, alleging that several PayPal
accounts were opened in her name without her permission and that, in response to her complaints,
PayPal indicated that fraud was involved. She further alleged that “a settlement needs to be negotiated
for allowance of fraud.” Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 4.
The Magistrate Judge found that, for several reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. First, her one-paragraph Complaint did not identify a claim
that she was raising. 	Second, insofar as Plaintiff was attempting to allege a violation of a criminal
statute, a private right of action did not exist. See United States v. Oguaju, 76 F. App’x 579, 581 (6th
Cir. 2003)). Third, “Plaintiff’s allegations are too thin to provide fair notice of the factual and legal
grounds underlying her claims.” Doc. 3 at PAGEID 23. And finally, Plaintiff did not set forth how
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court on October 27, 2025, which the Court construes as an
Objection to the Report and Recommendation. Like her Complaint, the letter is difficult to decipher.
She repeats some of the allegations in her Complaint and says that she has a PayPal account and is a
Case: 2:25-cv-01177-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
victim of identity theft. She lists a number of laws that she asks the Court to “take into consideration.”
Doc. 4 at PAGEID 26-27 (listing “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act[,] Dodd-Frank Act[,] Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010[, and] Section 103.4 of Regulation E”).
II. 	Discussion
When a party timely objects to a report and recommendation, 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Congress authorized federal courts to dismiss certain claims brought in forma pauperis. 	28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides that the court “shall dismiss” an action if it is “frivolous or malicious” or
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
On de novo review, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the Complaint.
Plaintiff’s 	Objection 	fails 	to 	identify 	any 	legal 	or 	factual 	error 	made 	in 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	And even considering the new allegations in the Objection, Plaintiff has not
provided fair notice of the factual and legal grounds supporting any potential claim under the laws she
listed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). At bottom, Plaintiff
has failed in her Complaint and Objection to give fair notice of the claims she is raising or to describe
how PayPal’s conduct was wrongful and gave rise to a claim. She has also still failed to explain how
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, 	the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 4) and ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) in its entirety. 	The Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment for
defendant.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
DATE: January 22, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case: 2:25-cv-01177-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>