Darthard v. Greater Columbus Convention Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY DARTHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREATER COLUMBUS
CONVENTION CENTER,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:26-cv-958
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Anthony Darthard, sues the Greater Columbus Convention Center regarding
alleged complaints against Plaintiff. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff has submitted a request to
file a civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as
if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
This matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal
of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons
below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Case: 2:26-cv-00958-SDM-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to
“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In
doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are
assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from
filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e), which
provides in pertinent part as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
* * *
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious; [or]
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte
dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or
upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring a court to conduct a screening of “a complaint in a civil action
in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity . . . [to] identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
of the complaint [that is] frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted”).
Further, to properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must
satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Case: 2:26-cv-00958-SDM-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
See also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under
Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual
demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B.,
727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).
Although this pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations, a pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”
is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). A complaint will not
“suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (cleaned up).
Instead, in order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (cleaned up).
Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
plausibility of an inference depends on a host of considerations, including common sense and the
strength of competing explanations for the defendant’s conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504
(citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se complaints “to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Garrett v. Belmont Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 374 F. App’x 612,
614 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient
treatment, however, has limits; “courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim
asserted.” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F. App’x 975, 976–77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v.
Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Case: 2:26-cv-00958-SDM-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
II. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety reads as follows: “I want the court to look into any
complaints Greater Convention Center has made against Anthony Darthard.” (Compl., ECF No.
1-1.) Plaintiff does not specify how any alleged complaints were improper, the subject of those
complaints, how his legal rights were violated, or how he was injured in any way as a result of
Defendant’s actions. The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint provides insufficient
factual content or context from which the Court could reasonably infer that Defendant violated
Plaintiff’s rights. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set
forth in Rule 8(a). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). For these reasons,
it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
III. 	DISPOSITION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
is GRANTED. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED
under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive
Case: 2:26-cv-00958-SDM-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:26-cv-00958-SDM-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>