Bank of America, N.A. v. Smith et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, defendants motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal(Docs. 19 and 20) are DENIED. Defendants miscellaneous motion or petition for review (Doc. 23) is DENIED. To the exten t the Amended Certificate of Service (Doc. 25) is intended to be construed as a motion to amend a prior filing it also is DENIED. Based upon defendants contumacious conduct in continuing to clog the docket of this case with frivolous motions and petitions filed after remand, the Court instructs the Clerk of Court to refuse any further filings in the above - captioned case, with the sole exception of any timely permissible objections to the Report and Recommendation. If other petitions or motions are inadvertently accepted by the Clerk and filed in this case, they will be summarily denied and or stricken from the record. Finally, defendants will be and are warned in the strongest possible terms that they may be subjected to future non-monetary sanctions, as well as additional monetary sanctions, if they continue vexatious filings in this federal court in any other case. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 9/8/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Bank of America, N.A.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
Demetrious Smith, et al.,
Defendant(s).

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:16cv1156
Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on June 1, 2017 a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 26). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 29).
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and
considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, defendants’ motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
(Docs. 19 and 20) are DENIED.
Defendants’ miscellaneous “motion” or “petition for review” (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
To the extent the “Amended Certificate of Service” (Doc. 25) is intended to be construed
as a motion to amend a prior filing it also is DENIED.
Based upon defendants’ contumacious conduct in continuing to clog the docket of this

case with frivolous motions and petitions filed after remand, the Court instructs the Clerk of
Court to refuse any further filings in the above - captioned case, with the sole exception of any
timely permissible objections to the Report and Recommendation. If other petitions or motions
are inadvertently accepted by the Clerk and filed in this case, they will be summarily denied and
or stricken from the record.
Finally, defendants will be and are warned in the strongest possible terms that they may
be subjected to future non-monetary sanctions, as well as additional monetary sanctions, if they
continue vexatious filings in this federal court in any other case. This includes any future
attempt to again improperly remove actions from state court to federal court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________
Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court