194 F.3d 1311 (6th Cir. 1999), 99-3047, Ashiegbu v. Purviance
|Citation:||194 F.3d 1311|
|Party Name:||Cletus O. ASHIEGBU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Penney PURVIANCE, et al., Sandi Bartley-Buzas, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||September 28, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Before MERRITT and CLAY, Circuit Judges; ALDRICH, District Judge. [*]
This pro se litigant appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 through 1986. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Seeking twenty million dollars in damages, Cletus O. Ashiegbu sued nine people employed by the State of Ohio (Penny Purviance, Ike Lively, Randy Headly, Joyce Mitchell, Sue Creagan, Joseph Harper, Judy Jones, Randy Ferguson, and Sheilba Berger--"individual state employees"), and one person employed by the City of Columbus (Sandi Bartley-Buzas--"city employee"), in their individual capacities. Ashiegbu claimed that: 1) the individual state employees collectively conspired to deprive him of his civil rights by denying him employment with the State of Ohio; and 2) the city employee, individually and in concert with the state employees, deprived him of his civil rights by denying him employment with the City of Columbus.
The district court dismissed the complaint against the nine state employees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city employee (Sandi Bartley-Buzas). Ashiegbu appeals.
In his timely appeal, Ashiebgu essentially reasserts the claims that he set forth in the district court. He also moves the court for the appointment of counsel.
Whether the district court correctly dismissed Ashiegbu's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is a question of law subject to de...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP