Swartz v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided May 6, 2022·No. 3:22-cv-00117·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION NATHAN A. SWARTZ, > Case No. 3:22-cv-117 Petitioner, : District Judge Michael J. Newman vs. ’ Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. WARDEN, LONDON : CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, : Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) in connection with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). The total filing fee due in this habeas corpus action is $5.00. Petitioner’s application reveals that as of May 1, 2022 petitioner had $20.18 on account to his credit, with monthly pay of $20.00. (See Doc. 1, PageID 37, 40). The application thus demonstrates that petitioner has sufficient funds available to pay the full $5.00 filing fee in order to institute this action. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) be DENIED and petitioner be ordered to pay the full filing fee of $5.00 within thirty (30) days. Petitioner should be notified that his failure to pay the full filing fee within thirty days will result in the dismissal of this action. IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.

May 6, 2022 s/Peter B, Silvain, Jr. Peter B. Silvain, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report 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 on the 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 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Swartz v. Warden, London Correctional Institution, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Swartz v. Warden, London Correctional Institution (Swartz v. Warden, London Correctional Institution) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related