IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Keith D. Jones, ) CASE NO. 1:19 CV 1722 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) Vv. ) ) Rite Aid Corp., et al., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Defendants. ) ) Pro se plaintiff Keith D. Jones has filed a complaint in this matter against Rite Aid Corp. and Lucky’s Market LLC (Doc. No. 1) along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). Although the civil cover sheet the plaintiff has submitted with his complaint indicates he seeks to assert a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

, his complaint sets forth no allegations whatsoever. Federal district court are required to dismiss before service any in forma pauperis complaint filed in federal court that the court determines is frivolous or 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.

(e)(2)(B). Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, Pilgrim v. Littlefield,

(6" Cir. 1996), to survive a dismissal for failure to state a

claim under § 1915(e), apro se complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Hill v. Lappin,

(6th Cir. 2010). The plaintiffs complaint does not contain allegations plausibly suggesting he has a valid federal civil claim against the defendants under Title VII or otherwise. See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ.,

(6th Cir. 1996) (court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted, and his complaint is hereby dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED.

bated: 0 1 0) 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

De