Eddie Van Oliver, III v. Mental Health Industry, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION EDDIE VAN OLIVER, III, Plaintiff, Case Number 2:25-cv-1380 v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 8, 2026. (ECF No. 4.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (Id.) In November 2025, Plaintiff Eddie Van Oliver, III, proceeding pro se, initiated this action, but did not pay a filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.)

The Magistrate Judge issued an order explaining that a plaintiff may proceed without paying the initial $405.00 filing fee only if the Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)

Twice, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to either move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405.00 filing fee. (See ECF Nos. 2, 3.) Plaintiff was warned that “failure to comply . . . will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.” (ECF No. 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a properly supported motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Orders, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). (ECF No. 4.)

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 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. (ECF No. 4, PageID 65.) Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS (ECF No. 4) the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Eddie Van Oliver, III at 2302 Middlehurst Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43219.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2/18/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE