Geraci v. Mohr et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 8 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted and the complaint 1 Complaint be Dismissed without prejudice. It is further RECOMMENDED that the prior motions 4 , 5 to dismiss and for leave to proceed informa pauperis be Denied as Moot. Objections to R&R due by 12/24/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/6/2012. (art)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MATTEW A. GERACI, Plaintiff, vs GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:12-cv-771 Beckwith, J. Litkovitz, M.J. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On October 9, 2012, a pro se complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiff, who was alleged to be an inmate at the Correctional Reception Center (CRC) in Orient, Ohio. (Doc. 1). On November 5, 2012, after a Deficiency Order was issued requiring plaintiff to either pay the $350 filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application, Alonzo Shephard, another inmate at CRC who claims he is plaintiffs "prose counsel" and "helper," filed a motion on plaintiffs behalf to dismiss the complaint with prejudice followed by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 4, 5). Because it appeared on close review of the complaint that it was not signed by plaintiff and actually may have been prepared and submitted by "pro se counsel & helper" Shephard, 1 the Court issued an Order on November 21, 2012, requiring plaintiff to submit a complaint personally signed by plaintiff himself within thirty (30) days if he intends to proceed with this cause of action. (Doc. 6). This matter is now before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed in response to the November 21, 2012 Order by "Matthew A. Geraci," an inmate at the North Central Correctional Complex in Marion, Ohio. (Doc. 8). In the motion to dismiss filed on December 3, 2012, Geraci states: On or about October 9, 2012 an inmate "Shephard" filed a civil complaint in my 1 It is noted that upon close review of the in forma pauperis application, it was also difficult to ascertain who actually signed that application-either plaintiff himself or a "helper" on plaintifrs behalf. (See Doc. 5, p. 7). name. If the Court would look on the complaint form - my name is spelled wrong. This is not my document or filing. I request that this Court would dismiss this complaint and waive all cost in this action since I did not file or accept this as my own. (!d.). In light of the recent pleading, which appears to be have been filed by the actual person named as plaintiff in this action, it is RECOMMENDED that the plaintiffs motion to dismiss filed on December 3, 2012 (Doc. 8) be GRANTED and the complaint (Doc. 1) DISMISSED without prejudice on the grounds that plaintiffhimselfnever intended to initiate the instant action and the inmate "helper," Alonzo Shephard, who prepared and filed the complaint on plaintiffs behalf, had no authority to do so. (See Doc. 6) (and cases cited therein). It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the prior motions to dismiss and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 4, 5), which also appear to have been prepared and filed by Shephard, should be DENIED as moot. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Date: ~X~ Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge 2 ~--------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 1:12-cv-771 MATTEW A. GERACI, Plaintiff, Beckwith, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants. NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation ("R&R") within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent's objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). cbc 3 • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: X B. Received by (Printed Name) o. Is delivery address different from Item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: tJtt?A-t<-w A· G--e.f"k~ b b ~ -\.\ g\ Nor& Q.,d'-re•..l C.vt'~ec..+;.-At l Po ~q~ ·tR (2... ~n'f,'lI (J.f{ 4 3 J " 2. Article Number (fransfer from service label) f , 7002 3150 DODD 8389 9494

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?