Sowell v. State of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION SALVATORE J. SOWELL, : Case No. 2:24-cv-4153 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. vs. : Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson : STATE OF OHIO, et al, : : Defendants. : : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On January 7, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay the filing fee within thirty days to commence this action. (Doc. 6 at 2–3). The Court also warned Plaintiff that should he fail to timely pay the fee, his case would be dismissed. (Id. at 3).

More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.1 As such, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED for want of prosecution. See, e.g., In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381–82 (6th Cir. 2002). The Undersigned also RECOMMENDS certifying that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610–11 (6th Cir. 1997).

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 Notably, instead of paying the filing fee in this action, Plaintiff seemingly filed a similar Complaint and moved for in forma pauperis status in a new action. See Sowell v. United States of America, et al., Case. No. 2:25-cv-00003 (Jan. 3, 2025) (Doc. 1). authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Date: February 18, 2025 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE