Martin v. HFC et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 10/21/15. (lvw)(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
ROBERT MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:15-cv-2435
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge King

HFC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On August 4, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied
and that he be granted thirty days to pay the full filing fee. Failure to timely pay the filing fee
will result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. (See Report and Recommendation,
Doc. 7). This Report and Recommendation followed a previous Opinion and Order by the
Magistrate Judge giving Plaintiff 30 days to file an application that complies with the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 1 Plaintiff was specifically advised
that failure to do so would result in the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff
filed an Objection to that Order, which is also currently before the Court for review. (See Doc.
5). And then Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis do to Indigency
Status Below Poverty Level Attested to in 28 U.S.C. 1746 affidavit under Penalties for Perjury.”
(See Doc. 6). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the June 24,
1

Plaintiff’s initial Motion (Doc. 1) was deficient and he had to submit the required executed trust fund
statement from his institution pursuant to the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (See Doc. 2).

2015 Opinion and Order (Doc. 5) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the August 4, 2015 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 8). The Court will consider these matters de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The objections present the same issues presented to and considered by the Magistrate
Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff continues to object and argue that he does
not have to comply with the requirements of the PLRA. However, Plaintiff has repeatedly been
advised that he must comply with the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); see also Martin v.
Lowery, Case No. 05-3258 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 2005); Martin v. Woods, Case No. 2:12-cv-341,
Report and Recommendation (S.D. Ohio July 2, 2012). Further, he objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s authority to rule on his in forma pauperis motion. Again, Plaintiff is mistaken as the
Magistrate Judge’s authority is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, for the reasons
stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections to both the
Opinion and Order and the Report and Recommendation are without merit and are hereby
OVERRULED.
Both the June 24, 2015 Opinion and Order (Doc. 2) and the August 4, 2015 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff has thirty days from the
date of this Order to pay the full filing fee. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. The Clerk shall remove Documents 1, 5, 6, 7,
and 8 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2