Holder v. PNC Bank N.A.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Holder v. PNC Bank N.A.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI DEMETRIUS HOLDER Case No. 1:24-cv-388 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland

PNC BANKN.A., Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 46)

This action is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Doc. 46) of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz, to whom this case is referred pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 43). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 47) to the Report, to which Defendant responded in Opposition (Doc. 51). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 43). Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed for being untimely. (Order, Doc. 34.) Plaintiff now seeks to the appeal the Order but lacks an arguable basis in law. (Report, Doc. 46, Pg. ID 413.) Plaintiff objects to the Report, launching a series of different objections. (Objection, Doc. 47.) Plaintiff's objections, however, all relate to alleged procedural defects that occurred before Plaintiff filed his motion. (Id.) None of Plaintiff's arguments involve the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning in the Report or his motion. As Plaintiff's objections are irrelevant, they provide

no basis for this Court to reject the Report. Thul v. United States DOI, No. 1:23-CV-165,

2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121485

, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. July 11, 2024). As required by

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 46) in its entirety and ORDERS the following: 1. The Court certifies that any in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith within the meaning of

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3); and 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 43) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Hei, wa or OHIO

MATTHEW W. McFARLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Full Case Name
Demetrius Holder v. PNC Bank N.A.
Status
Unknown