UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

CHARLES BALLARD, : Case No. 3:25-cv-00306 : Plaintiff, : District Judge Michael J. Newman : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : UNITED STATES CONGRESS, : : Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In September 2025, Plaintiff Charles Ballard submitted documents to this Court to institute this case, Ballard v. United States Congress, Case No. 3:25-cv-00306, as well as Ballard v. Ohio Secretary of State, Case No. 3:25-cv-00308. He is proceeding in both cases without the assistance of counsel. The cases are currently pending before different judicial officers. Plaintiff sought to proceed in both cases in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and without paying the filings costs to proceed. His IFP applications in both cases appear identical. (Compare Doc. No. 1 in Case No. 3:25-cv-00306 with Doc. No. 1 in Case No. 3:25-cv- 00308.) This Court recently denied Plaintiff’s IFP application in Case No. 3:25-cv-00308, after requiring him to provide additional information about his financial situation. See Ballard v. Ohio Secretary of State, No. 3:25-cv-308,

(S.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2025) (Silvain, M.J.), report and recommendation adopted,

(S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2025) (Rose, J.) (adopting Report and Recommendation that noted Plaintiff’s “total yearly income from all sources” was $132,344.00” and found that

Plaintiff had not shown he was unable to pay for the costs of this litigation and still provide for himself). (Doc. Nos. 6, 7 in Case No. 3:25-cv-00308.) The Court should resolve Plaintiff’s IFP application in this case, Case No. 3:25- cv-00306, the same way. For the reasons the Court discussed in Case No. 3:25-cv-00308, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1 herein) be DENIED and that he be ORDERED to pay the $405.00

filing fee within 30 days of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the filing fee may result in a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge that this matter be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

/s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report and Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly

arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981).