UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

TROY DELANO MCRAE,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:21-cv-4962 Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FRYE, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Troy Delano McRae, an Ohio inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel, has applied to file a civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1, 3.) Plaintiff’s certified trust fund account statement accompanying his application indicates that he currently has $1,493.60 in his prison trust fund account and that his average monthly deposits for the last six months were in the amount of $262.53. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing $402.00 fee required to commence a civil action in this Court and it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and that he be ORDERED to pay the $402.00 filing fee WITHIN 14 DAYS of such Order if he intends to proceed. It is further RECOMMENDED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely pay the $402.00 filing fee, this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without assessing the filing fee. PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

(b)(1). The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE