IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT LEON HILLMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-154

Judge George C. Smith

Magistrate Judge Jolson

STATE OF OHIO,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state inmate, seeks to initiate this action without prepayment of fees or costs. 

(Doc. 1). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prohibits the grant of leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis under certain circumstances:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil 

action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or 

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is 

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (also known as the “3-Strikes Provision”). Plaintiff has, on at least 3 

occasions, brought an action in this Court that was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. Hillman v. Simms, 2:09-cv-810 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 3, 2009); Hillman 

v. Simms, et al., 2:08-cv-717 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 11, 2009); Muff, et al. v. Mack, 2:08-cv-1027 (S.D. 

Ohio Jan. 29, 2009). The 3-Strikes Provision of the PLRA therefore prohibits Plaintiff from 

proceeding without the prepayment of fees or costs unless he “is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.”
2

The Court has reviewed the proposed complaint and determined that none of Plaintiff’s

claims suggest that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury” sufficient to 

overcome the bar established by § 1915(g). Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to procced in forma pauperis be DENIED and that, if he intends to 

pursue this action, he be directed to pay the full $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days.

Procedure on Objections

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate

review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th

Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the issues
3

of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 23, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE