United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
MICHAEL R. BARRETT, JUDGE
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).
Magistrate Judge recommends that this matter be closed on the
docket of the Court.
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.
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.
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).
Standard of Review
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).
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.
Defendants' Objection to R&R
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 ...