Annamalai v. Montgomery County Treasurer

Filing 5

ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION (Doc. No. #3 ); (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. #2 ); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. No. #1 ) UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); AND (4) TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 11/25/24. (pb)(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
ANNAMALAI ANNAMALAI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:24-cv-268

vs.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
TREASURER,

District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (Doc. No. 3); (2) ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 2); (3)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 1) UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); AND (4)
TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Annamalai Annamalai, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin, brings this civil case pro se seeking leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 1 In addition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, the case is
before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint (Doc. No. 1-1), the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman (Doc. No. 2), Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc.
No. 3), and Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. No. 4).
The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), Plaintiff’s objections, and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se
filings in his favor and accepting his factual allegations as true, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976), the Court finds no merit in his objections and adopts the Report and
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see, e.g., Mann v. Mohr,
1

Plaintiff indicates that he is also known as Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar. Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID 6.

802 Fed. App’x 871, 878 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020) (affirming de novo review of the plaintiff’s
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED; the Report and Recommendation
is ADOPTED; Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
and Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal is TERMINATED as moot. In addition, given
Plaintiff’s litigation history of filing complaints in multiple jurisdictions relating to the same or
substantially similar claims, the Court PLACES Plaintiff ON NOTICE that if he files any future
complaint in this Court based on the same subject matter asserted in the instant case, the Court
may find he is a vexatious litigant subject to pre-filing restrictions.
The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order
would not be taken in good faith and, consequently, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal this Order
in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 25, 2024

s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

2