Hendricks et al v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections et al

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendations.; denying 11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 1/28/15. (kn)(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
EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN HENDRICKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01841
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s January 7,
2015 Order and Report and Recommendation (“Order and R&R”). (ECF No. 25.) In that filing,
the Magistrate Judge granted the motions to proceed in forma pauperis of Plaintiffs Dupuis,
Randall, Williams, Coverdale, Lupinski, and Steidl, denied Plaintiff Hendricks’ initial motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and granted Plaintiff Hendricks’ revised motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff
Nameth’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and order Plaintiff Nameth to pay
$40.00, or his portion of the filing fee, in order to proceed in this action. Finally, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that Plaintiffs Carpenter and Austin be assessed $40.00 and that their claims
be dismissed for want of prosecution, not to be reinstated even if the filing fee is later paid.
The Order and R&R advised the parties that, if any party sought review by the District
Judge, that party may file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations within fourteen

(14) days. (ECF No. 25, at PAGEID # 5.) The Order and R&R further advised the parties that
the failure to object within fourteen days would “result in a waiver of the right to de novo review
by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court.” (Id. at
PAGEID # 5–6 (citing Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) and
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005)).)

The Court has reviewed the Order and R&R. Noting that no objections have been filed,
that the time for filing such objections has expired, and that the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning is
correct, the Court ADOPTS the Order and R&R (ECF No. 25), DENIES Plaintiff Nameth’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11), and ORDERS Plaintiff Nameth to
submit the requisite $40.00 filing fee within twenty-one (21) days in order to proceed in this
action. The Court further DISMISSES Plaintiffs Carpenter and Austin’s claims for want of
prosecution, not to be reinstated to the Court’s active docket even if the filing fee is later paid in
full, and ORDERS that Plaintiffs Carpenter and Austin each be ASSESSED $40.00.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2