Matthews v. Dayton Police Department et al
Filing
45
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (DOC. 42) BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Objections to R&R due by 11/13/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/30/2018. (dm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) Modified on 10/30/2018 (dm).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ANTHONY MATTHEWS,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:18-cv-26
vs.
DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (DOC. 42) BE DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________
This pro se civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) on appeal. Doc. 42. “[U]nder Rule 24(a), a non-prisoner who desires to appeal in forma
pauperis must first file a motion seeking such relief with the district court.” Callihan v. Schneider,
178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 24). “With that motion, the individual
must attach an affidavit showing in detail the information prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix
of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure[,]” namely, “information detailing the
individual’s ability to pay or give security for fees and costs; the right to redress; and the issues
the party intends to present on appeal.” Id.; see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). “After this required
information has been filed, the district court must ascertain both the individual’s pauper status and
the merits of the appeal.” Id.
Here, pro se Plaintiff has not complied with Appellate Rule 24 because, at the least, he has
not identified the issues he intends to present on appeal as required by Appellate Rule 24(a)(1)(C).
1
Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.
See doc. 42. Therefore, the undersigned is not able to determine whether he seeks to appeal in
good faith. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that that pro se Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to appeal IFP (doc. 42) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with
Appellate Rule 24. See Burney v. Warden, No. 2:09-CV-731, 2010 WL 3365935, at *3 (S.D. Ohio
Aug. 23, 2010); United States v. Ayyubi, No. 5:92CR0206, 2013 WL 4592023, at *2 (N.D. Ohio
Aug. 26, 2013).
Date:
October 30, 2018
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
2
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with
this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if
served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however,
this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to
SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the
deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a
showing of good cause.
Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected
to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs.
A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being
served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If,
however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended
to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).
3
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?