Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holloway v. Maria

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

April 10, 2018

WALTER H. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
v.
MARIA, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint on March 5, 2018 (Filing No. 1) and was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 7, 2018 (Filing No. 5). The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff's Statement of Claim[1] reads: “2 years in a row I was denied unemployment from lies and this time its [sic] the same people Maria and Jose of Omaha Work Staffing downtown location 713 S. 16th Omaha, it was Skinner Bakery and Omaha Staffing lies” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4). Four Defendants are identified:

(1) Maria, Jose[2] Manager of Omaha Work Staffing 713 S. 16th, Omaha Douglas Nebr.
(2) Skinner Bakery 2nd Shift Supervisor Superviser [sic]/Omar and Assistant 46 F, Omaha Douglas Nebr.
(3) M & M Staffing 713 S. 16th, Omaha Douglas Nebr.
(4) (State of Nebraska) Unemployment Workers Answering Machine/Employees and Computers 550 Lincoln Nebr.

         Plaintiff, who resides in Omaha, states he is a citizen of “United Kingdom/ USA” and also a Nebraska corporation. He states that M & M Staffing is a Mexican corporation. The citizenship of other Defendants is not stated.

         Plaintiff claims the amount at stake is more than $75, 000.00 because “they reported the same record knowing I wrote the business plans to help them. Now I have no home, subject to hard labor injur[ies] and broke” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4).

         Since filing his Complaint, Plaintiff has submitted additional materials that do not relate to these Defendants or to the claim alleged (Filing No. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13).

         Because they are not relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, these additional materials will not be considered by the court.

         II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.