UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

TYRONE FRANKLIN, 

 Case No. 1:17-cv-00589 

Plaintiff, 

 Dlott, J. 

vs. Bowman, M.J. 

 

TIMOTHY LANTER, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff=s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915. (Doc.11). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

1915(a)(3), A[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 

writing that it is not taken in good faith.@ See also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Good faith in 

this context is demonstrated when the party seeks appellate review of an issue that is not 

frivolous. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An appeal is 

frivolous where the appeal lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

On January 30, 2018, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state 

a claim for relief. (Docs. 8, 9). Thus, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with 

prejudice. The Court’s Order also certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an 

appeal of the order would not be taken in good faith, and denied Plaintiff leave to appeal 

in forma pauperis. Id. In light of the Court’s prior Order, the undersigned herein 

Case: 1:17-cv-00589-SJD-SKB Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/02/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 89
2 

RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

(Doc. 11) be DENIED. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), plaintiff may file, within thirty (30) days after 

service of the District Court’s Order adopting this Report and Recommendation, a motion 

with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. 

Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United 

States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s motion must include a 

copy of the affidavit filed in the District Court and this Court’s statement as to the reasons 

for denying pauper status on appeal. Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 

Plaintiff is notified that if he does not file a motion within thirty (30) days of receiving 

notice of the District Court’s decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), or fails to 

pay the required filing fee of $455.00 within this same time period, the appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. Once dismissed for want 

of prosecution, the appeal will not be reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for pauper 

status is subsequently tendered, unless plaintiff can demonstrate that she did not receive 

notice of the District Court’s decision within the time period prescribed for by Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(a)(5). Id. 

 s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:17-cv-00589-SJD-SKB Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/02/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 90
3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

TYRONE FRANKLIN, 

 Case No. 1:17-cv-00589 

Plaintiff, 

 Dlott, J. 

vs. Bowman, M.J. 

 

TIMOTHY LANTER, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

NOTICE

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the 

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within 

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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). 

 

Case: 1:17-cv-00589-SJD-SKB Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/02/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 91