UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

DEACON THOMAS FRAZIER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:23-cv-445

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

Defendant. ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on July 24, 2023. (Doc. 6). Proper notice was given to Plaintiff (who proceeds pro se) under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including notice that he may forfeit rights on appeal if he fails to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981); see Berkshire v. Dahl,

(6th Cir. 2019). No objections to the R&R (Doc. 6) were filed and the time to do so has passed. The R&R (Doc. 6) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendations by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED with prejudice (pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii) & 1915A(b)(1)) because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In addition, the Court certifies (pursuant to

(a)(3)) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and thus denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. As a non-prisoner, however, Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider,

(6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv.,

(6th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court