IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Michelle Mathis, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : Case No. 2:12-cv-0173

 : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

Barack Obama, et al., Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I.

On February 24, 2012, plaintiff, Michelle Mathis, submitted

an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. As

previously explained by this Court in its order of March 1, 2012, 

Her application was not accompanied by a complaint as

defined in Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, which requires a complaint

to contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief ....” Rather, the only other

document Ms. Mathis filed aside from her in forma

pauperis application was a form apparently used in

state court to apply for a civil protection order. On

the line which is to be used to describe the person or

persons against whom the order is sought, no name

appears. The events supposedly leading to the need for

civil protection are certain Columbus Police Department

reports, none of which are attached. The defendants’

names appear only on a line which is to be completed by

a judge issuing the order; they include, among others,

President Obama and Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine.

In its previous order, the Court recognized that it could

simply dismiss this case at the outset because it is either

frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). In the interests of

justice, however, the Court allowed Ms. Mathis an opportunity to

Case: 2:12-cv-00173-GCS-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 04/25/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
file a complaint which complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, so that if

she has a potentially valid claim against any of the defendants,

she could state it in a way that permits the Court properly to

determine its possible merit. Ms. Mathis was directed to file

her complaint within twenty-one days. She was warned that her

failure to respond to this order, or failure to file a complaint

which meets the requirements of Rule 8(a) or which fails to state

a proper claim, or one within the Court’s jurisdiction, would

result in the dismissal of this case. 

Ms. Mathis has not filed a complaint nor has she responded

to the Court’s order in any other way. As a result, the Court

will recommend that this case be dismissed.

II. 

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that this

case be dismissed. It is further recommended that if this

recommendation is adopted, a copy of the complaint, this Report

and Recommendation, and the dismissal order be mailed to each of

the defendants.

 III.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

Case: 2:12-cv-00173-GCS-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 04/25/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00173-GCS-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 04/25/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>