United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. #10)
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (DOC. #9); PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID
JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #12) OVERRULED; DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #6) RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. #4) BE DENIED;
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #8)
OVERRULED; NOTICE TO DEFENDANT WITH REGARD TO MANDATORY
PAYMENT OF FILING FEE
H. RICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
has filed a pro se lawsuit, invoking this
Court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, alleging discrimination on the basis of race (Doc. #1).
Although he submitted a check for the full filing fee to the
Clerk of Courts, he later informed that office that said
check would be returned, based upon circumstances beyond his
control, due to insufficient funds. He then filed a Motion to
Proceed in forma pauper is (Doc. #9). The Magistrate
Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that
Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in forma pauper is be
denied (Doc. #10). Plaintiff has objected to that judicial
filing (Doc. #12). This Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in its
entirety, thus denying Plaintiff permission to proceed in
forma pauper is. Plaintiff has filed a myriad of
lawsuits with this Court, not a one of which, to this
Court's recollection with respect to its docket, has
successfully invoked this Court's subject matter
jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court has concluded that
Plaintiff has "'abused the privilege of proceeding
in forma pauper is 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." Easterllng v. Crawford, No.
3:13CV430, 2015 WL 3476402, at *2, S.D. Ohio March 31, 2015.
Given that the record in this case fails to reveal that
Plaintiff has received prior written communication from Chief
Judge Sargus to proceed in forma pauper is,
Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma paupehs (Doc.
#9) is DENIED.
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.
#10) are ADOPTED in their entirety, and Plaintiffs Objections
to said judicial filing (Doc. #12) are OVERRULED. Given that
Plaintiff has been denied the right to proceed in forma
pauper is and, further, given that he has yet to pay the
full filing fee. Plaintiff is advised that, unless, within
seven days from date, he pays the full filing fee, the
captioned cause will be ordered dismissed, without prejudice,
for failure to pay the filing fee.
has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, coupled with a
Motion for Hearing (Doc. #4). The Magistrate Judge filed a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiffs
Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied (Doc. #6).
Plaintiff has filed Objections to said Report and
Recommendation (Doc. #8). The Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation are ADOPTED in their entirety, without the
necessity of an oral and evidentiary hearing. In support of
this conclusion, the Court cannot better explain its
reasoning than to set forth pertinent parts of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation:
In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that his injury consists of
wages lost as a result of his termination. See doc.
4 at PageID 36. "A plaintiffs harm from the denial of a
preliminary injunction is irreparable if it is not fully
compensable by monetary damages/" Over street,
305 F.3d at 578 (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S.
61, 90 (1974)). Specifically, "[t]he fact that an
individual may lose his income for some extended period of
time does not result in irreparable harm, as income wrongly
withheld may be recovered through monetary damages in the
form of back pay." Id. at 579. 'Indeed,
'[t]he loss of a job is quintessentially reparable by
money damages/' Id. (citing Minnesota Ass
'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Unity Hosp., 59 F.3d 80,
83 (8th Cir. 1995)). Because Plaintiffs alleged injury is
lost income, he has failed to satisfy his burden of showing
that he will suffer an irreparable injury in the absence of
the requested preliminary injunction.
The absence of an irreparable injury here weighs heavily
against issuance of the requested preliminary injunction.
See Friendship Materials, Inc., 679 F.2d at 102-03
(stating that, at least where a constitutional violation is
not at issue, "this court has never held that a
preliminary injunction may be granted without any showing
that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury without
such relief); Harris v. United States, 745 F.2d 535,
536 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that "the absence of a
showing of irreparable harm is, in itself, sufficient grounds
upon which to deny a preliminary injunction"); see
also Enable Healthcare, Inc. v. Cleveland Quality Healthnet,
LLC, No. 1:16 CV 2395, 2016 WL 6581813, at *4 (N.D. Ohio
Nov. 7, 2016) (addressing only "the irreparable harm
factor because plaintiff has failed to show that it will
suffer any irreparable injury if the Court denies its
Doc. #6, at 3-4
Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint
(Doc. #17). Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in
opposition to said motion, in spite of being several days
beyond the time fixed by the Civil Rules for the filing of
same. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file a memorandum contra
the Defendant's motion, not later than the close of
business on Friday, May 18, 2018, provided he has
paid the filing fee to commence litigation in federal court.
Failure to pay the filing fee will, as stated above, result
in the dismissal of this litigation, without prejudice.
Should said filing fee be paid ...