Easterling v. Lakefront Lines, Inc.

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 9) BE DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 3/21/2018. (dm)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-75

vs.
LAKEFRONT LINES, INC.,

District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 9) BE DENIED
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Warren Easterling’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).2 Doc. 9. In one of a number of previous cases Easterling has pursued
in this Court,3 Judge Rice concluded that Easterling “has abused the privilege of proceeding in forma
pauperis in this Court” and, as a result, “he is barred from doing so in future litigation without the prior
written authorization of the Chief Judge of this district.” Easterling v. Crawford, No. 3:13CV430, 2015
WL 1476402, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2015) (attached hereto). In this case, Easterling’s motion for
leave fails to reflect that he has received prior written authorization from Chief Judge Sargus to proceed
IFP and, as a result, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Easterling’s motion be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

March 21, 2018

1

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.
2
Easterling previously submitted a check to the Clerk of Court in the amount of the required $400
filing fee. See doc. 5. Easterling, however, when manually filing his motion for leave to proceed IFP on
March 21, 2018, informed the Clerk that his check will likely be returned due to insufficient funds.
3
“Easterling is a frequent pro se litigator in the Southern District of Ohio and in Ohio state courts.”
See Easterling v. Sessions, No. 3:16-CV-375, 2017 WL 2463393, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:16-CV-375, 2017 WL 3720508 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2017).

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).

2