UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

STEVEN L. SMITH, 

 

 Petitioner, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-841 

 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS 

 Respondent. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Petitioner filed what appears to be a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 10, 

2018, but failed to either pay the requisite $5.00 filing fee or file an application for leave to 

proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 1.) On August 14, 2018, the Clerk of Court 

issued a Deficiency Notice and attached a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

directing Petitioner to pay the fee or submit an appropriate application to proceed in forma 

pauperis within thirty days. (ECF No. 2.) On August 31, 20 18, Petitioner filed his self-styled 

Notice of Special Appearance and Affidavit of Fact/Writ of Error, neither of which addressed the 

Clerk’s Deficiency Order. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) 

The Court thereafter, on September 5, 2018, issued an Order directing Petitioner to file an 

appropriate filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis and to submit a certified 

trust fund statement from his prison’s cashier. (ECF No. 5.) The Court also directed Petitioner 

to use the appropriate form to file his Petition so that the Court could properly evaluate his 

claims. (Id.) The Clerk forwarded all the necessary forms to Petitioner. The Court warned 

Petitioner that his failure to provide the information requested by the order within 30 days, the 
2

Court would assume that Petitioner has decided not to pursue this case, and does not request to 

proceed in forma pauperis and that Petitioner is not a pauper, and it will (1) assess plaintiff the 

full amount of the filing fee; (2) dismiss the case for want of prosecution; and (3) not reinstate 

the case to the Court’s active docket even if the filing fee is then paid in full. 

See In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner has not cured these deficiencies. Instead, he filed something entitled “Notice 

to Agent is Notice to Principal Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent” or “Affidavit of Financial 

Statement” in which he indicated, among other things, that he had no gold or silver coins. (ECF 

No. 7.) Although Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the 

appropriate form, he nevertheless simply incorporated his earlier-filed Petition by reference, 

which, as the Court has already found, does not permit any meaningful evaluation of his claims. 

(ECF No. 8.) 

The Court finds that Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s Order or otherwise 

sufficiency remedied the noted deficiencies. Petitioner has not meaningfully responded to the 

Court’s Deficiency Order. 

 This matter is, therefore, before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s failure to 

comply with its Deficiency Order and failure to prosecute. For the reasons set forth above, it is 

RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

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 
3

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 Respondent’s] ability to appeal the district 

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

Respondent 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)). 

Date: October 10, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE