Jay Z's Alleged Son Drops Paternity Suit After A Decade

Source: Dan Mullan / Getty

For over ten years, Rymir Satterthwaite has claimed that Jay-Z is his father.

Satterwaite’s story, which he told to anyone who would listen, is that his mother, Wanda, was 16 in 1992 when she became pregnant. She believed that it could’ve only been two men who could’ve been the father: a man named Robert Graves and Jay Z (née Shawn Carter).

In 2010, Wanda requested that Graves and Carter take paternity tests, to which Graves obliged. It was determined that Graves was not Satterthwaite’s father, leaving him to believe that Jay Z had to be his biological father. Jay Z never took the test.

So Satterthwaite began filing lawsuits trying to force the rapper to be tested. Courts threw the cases out due to a lack of evidence. Online speculation began circulating that the whole thing was a smear campaign. There were some who argued that Jay Z didn’t want to take the test because if he were the boy’s father, then he would have had sex with an underage girl. Jay Z would’ve been 22 at the time Wanda became pregnant.

Wanda died in 2016. And the lawsuits persisted, eight in total.

Satterthwaite, 32, filed his most recent lawsuit June 16, which was slammed by the rapper’s lawyers who claimed that this was “just the latest” in what he says has been “decades long harassment.”

“The fabricated allegations and claims have been addressed—and rejected—in multiple other courts,” the documents read, “and Plaintiff’s continued harassment of Defendant and disregard of those orders has already resulted in a contempt order,” E News reports.

Less than two weeks after filing his case, Satterthwaite has officially withdrawn his lawsuit. And while the public continues to push conspiracy theories, it looks like, legally, at least for now, this case has come to a close.

According to filing obtained by XXL, the latest paperwork reads “Plaintiff Rymire Satterthwaite Pro Se submits this notice of withdrawal from this complaint as a party to the action. The defendants have not filed an answer to the above complaint.”

See social media’s reaction to the ruling below. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.