1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RICO HAIRSTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-952 

 

 vs. Judge George C. Smith 

 Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

MR. DAILY, et al., 

 

Defendants. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff Rico Hairston, a state inmate proceeding without the 

assistance of counsel, commenced this action, but failed to pay the requisite filing fee, instead 

applying for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) On November 5, 2018, the 

undersigned recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied because at least three of his prior 

cases have been dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), known as the “threestrikes provision.” (ECF No. 8.) On December 7, 2018, the Court adopted this recommendation, 

denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordering Plaintiff to pay the filing fee 

within thirty (30) days from the date of the Order. (ECF No. 9.) The Court specifically advised 

Plaintiff that failure to pay the fee would result in dismissal of the action. (Id. at 1.) 

More than thirty (30) days have passed since the Court issued the Order (ECF No. 9) and 

Plaintiff has failed to pay the full filing fee1

 despite being warned of the consequences of failing 

 

1 In prior decisions, the Court mistakenly referred to the filing fee as $400 instead of the correct 

amount, $350. (ECF Nos. 2, 4, 8, 9.) 
2 

to do so. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______ 

DATED: January 14, 2019 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE