UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ARTURO GALVAN, 

Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:17-cv-1053 

 Judge George C. Smith 

v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Plaintiff, a state inmate who is proceeding without counsel, filed an Application to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis on January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 3.) Because Plaintiff failed to 

include the required certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement, the Court issued a 

Second Notice of Deficiency, instructing Plaintiff to submit the requisite documents or pay the 

$400 filing fee by February 25, 2018. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff submitted a second Motion for 

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on February 26, 2018. (ECF No. 5.) Although Plaintiff’s 

Application is not accompanied by the required statement of account showing the past six 

months of transactions, it did include a certificate from the prisoner cashier indicating that 

Plaintiff had a balance of $3,288.48 in his account as of February 11, 2018. (ECF No. 5, 

PAGEID # 27.) Because Plaintiff possesses enough money to pay the filing fee in full, it is 

RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED

and that he be GRANTED THIRTY DAYS to pay the Court’s filing fee or submit additional 

documentation showing that he is unable to pay the fee. 
2

For the reasons stated, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis be DENIED (ECF Nos. 3 & 5) and that he be GRANTED THIRTY DAYS

to either pay the Court’s $400.00 filing fee or submit the proper documentation. Plaintiff is 

further advised that should the Court adopt this Report and Recommendation, his failure to 

timely comply will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) 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 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE