McGlone II v. Ross Correctional Inst. et al

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the full filing fee be assessed and that, in the same order, the Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 9/17/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 8/31/2015. (agm)(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
EASTERN DIVISION
Jerry L. McGlone II,

:

Plaintiff,

Ross Correctional Inst.,
et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.

:

v.

:

2:15-cv-1534

JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:
:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 29, 2015, this prisoner civil rights case was filed
in this Court (it was transferred from the Western Division of
this Court in Cincinnati, where Plaintiff Jerry L. McGlone, II,
originally filed it).

Mr. McGlone did not pay the filing fee,

and he did not submit an in forma pauperis application to the
Court in Cincinnati before the case was transferred here.
In an order filed on May 8, 2015, the Court pointed out
these deficiencies to Mr. McGlone and gave him a deadline for
either paying the filing fee or submitting an in forma pauperis
request.

He responded by filing, on June 1, 2015, a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The motion was on the

appropriate form, but it did not include a trust fund statement
from Mr. McGlone’s institution, a document that is required by 28
U.S.C. §1915(a).

On June 26, 2015, the Court issued a second

order noting the absence of that statement - which is needed in
order to make the initial filing fee assessment - and telling Mr.
McGlone that if he did not submit it within thirty days, the
Court would assume he was not a pauper, assess him the full
filing fee, dismiss the case for want of prosecution, and not
reinstate the case even if he subsequently paid the fee.

Mr.

McGlone has filed nothing in response to that order, nor made any

other filing, since the date the order was issued.
The Court of Appeals’ order in In re Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 1997 WL 40203 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 1997), requires the
actions to be taken which are described above when a prisoner
fails, after being notified, to submit a properly-supported in
forma pauperis motion.

Consequently, it is recommended that the

full filing fee be assessed and that, in the same order, the
Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).

A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.

Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-