UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

ANTHONY MATTHEWS, 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cv-26 

vs. 

DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (DOC. 42) BE DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This pro se civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) on appeal. Doc. 42. “[U]nder Rule 24(a), a non-prisoner who desires to appeal in forma 

pauperis must first file a motion seeking such relief with the district court.” Callihan v. Schneider, 

178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 24). “With that motion, the individual 

must attach an affidavit showing in detail the information prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix 

of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure[,]” namely, “information detailing the 

individual’s ability to pay or give security for fees and costs; the right to redress; and the issues 

the party intends to present on appeal.” Id.; see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). “After this required 

information has been filed, the district court must ascertain both the individual’s pauper status and 

the merits of the appeal.” Id. 

 Here, pro se Plaintiff has not complied with Appellate Rule 24 because, at the least, he has 

not identified the issues he intends to present on appeal as required by Appellate Rule 24(a)(1)(C).

 1

 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and 

Recommendation. 
2 

See doc. 42. Therefore, the undersigned is not able to determine whether he seeks to appeal in 

good faith. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that that pro se Plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to appeal IFP (doc. 42) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with 

Appellate Rule 24. See Burney v. Warden, No. 2:09-CV-731, 2010 WL 3365935, at *3 (S.D. Ohio 

Aug. 23, 2010); United States v. Ayyubi, No. 5:92CR0206, 2013 WL 4592023, at *2 (N.D. Ohio 

Aug. 26, 2013).

Date: October 30, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman 

 Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 
3 

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

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

to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with 

this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if 

served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, 

this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to 

SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the 

deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a 

showing of good cause. 

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected 

to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being 

served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, 

however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended 

to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 

(6th Cir. 1981).