Patricia A. Grant, Ph.D. v. Richard D. Heo, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: March 24, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00392
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

PATRICIA A. GRANT, PH.D.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-392

vs.

RICHARD D. HEO, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 8); (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 7); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION (Doc. No. 1); (4) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BY APRIL 14, 2026; (5) PUTTING PLAINTIFF ON NOTICE THAT SHOULD SHE NOT PAY THE REQUIRED FEES, HER CASE MAY BE DISMISSED; (6) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; AND (7) DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS _______________________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, Patricia A. Grant, Ph.D., brings this case pro se under an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) against Defendants Richard D. Heo; Jeffrey R. Matthews, Esq.; Deborah E. Seabron, Ph.D.; and the Estate of Nancy Lazano. Doc. No 1-1. On January 20, 2026, Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP application (Doc. No. 1) because of Plaintiff’s assets. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. Doc. No. 8. Thus, her objections to the R&R are now ripe for review. 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. The Court notes, as did Judge Gentry, that even though pro se Plaintiff receives Veteran disability benefits and Social Security disability benefits, she has more than sufficient funds to pay the filing fee, and this matter is within the Court’s discretion. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se filings in her favor and accepting her factual allegations as true, the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objections. See Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 676 (6th Cir. 2018) (“We liberally construe pro se filings”). Judge Gentry’s R&R is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The R&R is hereby ADOPTED. As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay $405 (the $350 filing fee plus a $55 administrative fee) in full by April 14, 2026. Plaintiff is hereby ON NOTICE that, should she not pay the required fees by April 14, 2026, her case may be dismissed.

Finally, no appeal is presently available in this case because this Order is not a final appealable order and Plaintiff’s claims remain pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; cf. Sultaana v. Jerman, No. 1:15- cv-382, 2020 WL 13889761, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Cleaver v. Elias, 852 F.2d 266, 267 (7th Cir. 1988) (“An appeal is possible in the absence of [a Rule 58 final judgment] only if the district court has clearly disposed of all pending matters”)). Accordingly, 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. March 24, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge