Watson v. Ramere

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-13275
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CONNIE DENICE WATSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-13275

v. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

DONNA RAMERE et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE Pro se plaintiff Connie Denice Watson filed a complaint (Dkt. 1) and an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Dkt. 2). The Complaint asserts allegations that Watson is the victim of fraud stemming from Defendants’ alleged theft of Watson’s invention of a toy water balloon set. See Compl. at PageID.2. The Court has substantively reviewed Watson’s complaint and finds that it does not allege facts from which Watson could support a plausible claim for relief. Federal Rule of Civil Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a claim for relief include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To meet this pleading standard, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief above the speculative level, such that it is “plausible on its face.” Miller v. Clapp, No. 20-12510, 2020 WL 6867872, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2020). A complaint does not “suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Lewis-El v. Parker, No. 11-CV-14472, 2011 WL 5526020, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 10, 2011) (punctuation modified). Watson’s vague references to an alleged theft of her invention are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court dismisses Watson’s complaint without prejudice. The case is now closed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2025 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge