Hill v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al

Filing 18

ORDER finding as moot 5 Motion ; finding as moot 7 Motion to Amend/Correct; dismissing the complaint. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 5/31/16. (mb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
David Tyrone Hill,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections, et al,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:15-cv-762

ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio,
filed a pro se complaint against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction,
and several of its officers and correctional staff, alleging civil rights claims. The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application be denied
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). (See Doc. 10) Plaintiff filed three previous lawsuits
that were dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim for relief, which are
cited in the Magistrate Judge's Report. In such circumstances, the statute requires the
Court to deny an inmate's request for in forma pauperis status in a subsequent lawsuit,
absent clear evidence that the inmate is facing an imminent danger of injury or harm.
Plaintiff objected (Doc. 10), but this Court overruled his objections and adopted
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 16) The Court found that
Plaintiff's objections lacked merit, and he failed to allege facts demonstrating that he
faced any imminent danger of serious physical injury due to his incarceration. The
Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the full case filing fee within 30 days of the Order, or no
later than April 25, 2016, and specifically cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to pay the

filing fee would result in the dismissal of his complaint.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's order or pay the required filing fee. The
Magistrate Judge has therefore recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for
failure to prosecute, and that all of his pending motions be denied as moot. (Doc. 17)
Plaintiff's objections to that Report and Recommendation were due 14 days after
service which occurred on April 28, 2016, and his time for filing objections has expired.
Therefore, based on the entire record and for good cause shown, Plaintiff's
complaint and all claims alleged therein are dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. Plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint (Docs. 5 and 7) are denied as
moot.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith, and denies Hill leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
DATED: May 31, 2016

s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-2-