UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

SALVATORE J. SOWELL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-4153 v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson STATE OF OHIO, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Salvatore Sowell’s Dispositive Motion / Motion for Leave of Court (ECF No. 2) and Motion – Relief Sought (ECF No. 3). On February 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failing to comply with an Order of the Court to pay the full filing fee. (R&R, ECF No. 7, PageID 41.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court certify that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. (Id. PageID 41.) Plaintiff previously moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Because Plaintiff has previously filed at least three complaints while he has been a prisoner that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Plaintiff may not “use the periodic payment benefits of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(b)” for paying the required filing fee. In re Alea,

(6th Cir. 2002) (citing

(g)); (see ECF No. 4, PageID 24–25 (listing Plaintiff’s other cases).) Instead, he “must make full payment of the filing fee before his action may proceed.” In re Alea,

. Accordingly, on January 7, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay the full $405 filing fee within 30 days of the Order and notified Plaintiff that “his failure to timely pay the full $405 fee will result in the dismissal of his action.” (Id., PageID 39–40.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee by the deadline as ordered by the Court. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. (R&R, PageID 41.)

Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.

(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn,

(6th Cir. 1984), aff’d,

(1985); see also United States v. Walters,

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. (R&R, PageID 41–42.) Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion / Motion for Leave of Court (ECF No. 2) and Motion – Relief Sought (ECF No. 3). Pursuant to

(a)(3), the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and Plaintiff is therefore denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

, 610–11 (6th Cir. 1997). The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate this case on the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4/3/2025 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE