Tucker v. Mcclanahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
MIA TUCKER
v. Civil No. 26-cv-00073-SE-TSM
KEVIN MCCLANAHAN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff, Mia Tucker, filed a complaint against Kevin Mcclanahan,
alleging that Defendant “in numerous occasions, had ex parte communication,” and “should be
subjected to impeachment.” Doc. No. 1. The matter is before the court on preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and LR 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons that follow, the district
court should dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court conducts a preliminary review of actions that are filed in forma pauperis. LR
4.3(d)(2). The magistrate judge may recommend to the district judge that one or more claims be
dismissed if, among other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief
sought, or the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). Where, as here, Plaintiff represents herself, the court must construe his
allegations liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
DISCUSSION
Tucker’s complaint, viewed liberally, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Tucker alleges only that Defendant “had ex parte communication,” and that “Defendant
Case 1:26-cv-00073-SE-TSM Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
should be subjected to impeachment.” Doc. No. 1 at pg. 1. Without more, the complaint lacks
“the crucial detail of who, what, when, where, and how,” which is necessary to provide fair notice
of what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. Byrne v. Maryland, No. 1:20-cv-
00036-GZS, 2020 WL 1317731, at *5 (D. Me. Mar. 20, 2020) (rec. dec.), aff’d, 2020 WL 2202441
(D. Me. May 6, 2020). Plaintiff’s sparse allegations do not amount to a plausible claim, and
therefore, the district judge should dismiss the lawsuit.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the district judge should dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Any objections to
this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice.
The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation “are subject to review in the district court” and any issues “not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 848 F.2d
271, 275 (1st Cir. 1988)).
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: February 4, 2026
cc: Mia Tucker, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00073-SE-TSM Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 2