Roosevelt v. AT&T

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Theodore Roosevelt
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-927-JL
AT&T
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is the complaint (Doc. No. 1) filed by pro
se and in forma pauperis plaintiff Theodore Roosevelt. 	The
complaint is before the court for preliminary review, pursuant
to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Background
Roosevelt alleges that on September 9, 2018, he went to an
AT&T store in Concord, New Hampshire for assistance with a
problem he as having with an app on his iPod. 	An AT&T employee
told Roosevelt to uninstall and reinstall the app but Roosevelt,
concerned about losing data stored in the app, stated he was
going to “look it up on YouTube.” 	The store employee
misunderstood Roosevelt and believed that he intended to post a
video of the employee on YouTube. 	The two argued, and the
employee asked Roosevelt to leave the store. 	Roosevelt asked
the employee for her name so he could “call Corporate” on her.
When the employee refused to give Roosevelt her name, Roosevelt
called the police, who obtained the employee’s name and gave it
to Roosevelt.
Case 1:18-cv-00927-JL Document 4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 3

2
Roosevelt states that he called AT&T’s corporate offices
and was told they are investigating the employee. 	Roosevelt has
not received any information concerning the investigation.
Roosevelt brings this action against AT&T seeking unspecified
redress for the stress, anxiety, suffering, loss of sleep and
detriment to his mental health he claims his interactions with
AT&T have caused.
Discussion
I. 	Standard
This court may dismiss claims asserted in pleadings filed
by parties proceeding in forma pauperis, if they have failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). 	In determining whether a pro se pleading states a
claim, the Court construes the pleading liberally. 	See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 	Disregarding legal
conclusions, the court considers whether the factual content in
the pleading and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as
true, state a claim to relief. 	Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723
F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013).
II. 	Failure to State a Claim
Roosevelt has no right to be treated with courtesy by an
employee in a retail store, or to obtain the name of a retail
employee on demand. 	Further, Roosevelt has no protected
Case 1:18-cv-00927-JL Document 4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 3

3
interest in obtaining the results of a personnel investigation
by a corporation of one of its employees. 	The fact that the
interaction caused Roosevelt anxiety and stress, without more,
does not give rise to any cause of action actionable in this
court. 	Therefore, the facts alleged in the complaint fail to
state any plausible claim upon which relief can be granted, and
the district judge should dismiss the complaint in its entirety,
pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this action. 	Any objections to this report and
recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Failure to file
objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal
the district court’s order. 	See United States v. De Jesús-
Viera, 655 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir. 2011); Sch. Union No. 37 v.
United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
October 16, 2018
cc: 	Theodore Roosevelt, pro se
Case 1:18-cv-00927-JL Document 4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 3