Maurice L. Walker v. Charles E. Bradley, Jr.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION : Maurice L. Walker, : : Case No. 2:25-cv-01474 Plaintiff, : v. : Judge Graham : Charles E. Bradley, Jr. : Magistrate Judge Deavers : Defendant. : ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” doc. 3), filed January 12, 2026, which recommended Plaintiff Maurice L. Walker’s complaint (doc. 1-1) be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When no objections are timely filed, a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note.

The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s claims and allegations to be “devoid of any comprehensible legal or factual basis.” Doc. 3, # 25. By Tuesday, January 27, the deadline for filing objections to the R&R had passed without any objections from Plaintiff. On January 29, however, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as “Affidavit of Truth.” Doc. 4. The Court finds no clear error with the R&R and would reach the same conclusion upon de novo review in consideration of Plaintiff’s affidavit. Plaintiff has also filed an application to the clerk for entry of default judgment against the defendant. Doc. 5. This, too, is devoid of legal or factual basis.

The Court ADOPTS the R&R (doc. 3) and ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and the Court would therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James L. Graham JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District Judge DATE: March 3, 2026