Clark v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority et al
Filing
2
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Leodius Clark. It is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 3/28/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 3/10/2016. (pes)(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
LEODIUS CLARK,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action 2:16-cv-204
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Deavers
OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al.,
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Leodius Clark has submitted a civil complaint properly characterized as a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and he has requested to proceed in forma
pauperis. Based upon its review of Mr. Clark’s account statement, the Court finds that he can
afford to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Clark’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and that the Court order Mr. Clark
to pay the filing fee within 30 days. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Clark be advised
that his failure to make the required payment may result in the dismissal of this case.
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. The district judge 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, the district judge 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/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?