Johnson v. Chief Inspector Central Office

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Johnson v. Chief Inspector Central Office

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Alonzo Johnson,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:20–cv–3192

Chief Inspector Central Office, et al., Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants. Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers

OPINION AND ORDER

Alonzo Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 24, 2020, and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot., ECF No. 1. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he has “three strikes” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g) and does not qualify for the imminent danger exception. R&R, ECF No. 3. The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1).

Id. at 16

. The R&R further advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R.

Id.

The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no objections were filed. Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the entire $400 filing fee within THIRTY DAYS of this Order. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to pay the full fee within thirty days will result in dismissal of this action. See In re Alea,

286 F.3d 378, 382

(6th Cir. 2002). Finally, the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) that for the reasons stated in the R&R, any appeal of this Order adopting the R&R would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael H. Watson_______________ MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown