Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baird v. Ammiyhuwd

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

July 23, 2018

Candice Baird, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Ammiyhuwd, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MICHAEL R. BARRETT, JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's January 31, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 6). The Magistrate Judge reviewed Defendants' responses to the Court's December 20, 2016 Deficiency Order. (Docs. 3, 5). The parties were given proper notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), including notice that failure to make objections to the R&R in a timely manner would result in a forfeiture of their rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Defendant, Achashverosh Adnah Ammiyhuwd, filed an Objection to the R&R. (Doc. 7). Defendant has also filed a Letter titled “re: Affidavit and UCC 1 of Oscar Washington” (Doc. 8), a “Notice of Non-Response/Fault #1” (Doc. 9), and a “Notice of Letter to Clerk of Courts” (Doc. 10).

         The Magistrate Judge recommends that this matter be closed on the docket of the Court.

         The Court turns to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Doc. 6). The Magistrate Judge explains that there is simply no basis for “discharging” the $400.00 filing fee as Defendants' request. The Magistrate Judge further explains Defendants' petition for removal cannot be filed with the Court until the $400.00 filing fee is paid or an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Defendants filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with a petition for removal of a state court proceeding pending in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court. (Doc. 1).

         The Magistrate Judge's R&R provides a further description of the factual and procedural history of this case; therefore, the same will not be reiterated here except to address Defendants' objection. (Doc. 6).

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         When an objection is made the Magistrate Judge's Report, this Court “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order where it has been shown that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). When objections to a magistrate judge's Report are made, the district judge conducts a de novo review of the objected to portions and the district judge “may review any other aspects as the court sees fit.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         B. Legal Standard

         According to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the clerk of each district court shall “require the parties instituting any civil action…to pay a filing fee.” If a party cannot afford the required fee, they may file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and the application must include “a statement of all assets.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If the Court does not have information regarding a party's assets, they cannot determine if the assets are insufficient to provide both for a party's necessities and pay the filing fee required by the court. See Adkins v. E.I.DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Overall, parties only have two options (1) pay the filing fee or (2) proceed with an application in forma pauperis. See Truitt v. County of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1998).

         C. Defendants' Objection to R&R

         In their objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, Defendants seem to state that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly referred to them as proceeding under a “sovereign citizen” theory instead of under a “Sovereign state national Republic” theory. (Doc. 7 PageID at 156). Defendants also argue that the Magistrate Judge “does not have a written instrument to back her…R&R.” (Doc. 7 PageID at 164). However, as the Magistrate Judge stated, “the [sovereign citizen] theory (in all its various forms) has been struck down consistently by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.