UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MACHELLE C.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-268

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 44)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on January 10, 2023, submitted a 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44). 

This social security case was remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security on 

June 16, 2020. (Doc. 16). Since that remand, Plaintiff has requested on multiple 

occasions for her case to be reopened or reconsidered, which requests were denied. (E.g., 

Docs. 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36). Most recently, on January 5, 2023 and over Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations,

denied Plaintiff’s motion “for [her] SSDI case to move forward,” and certified that any in 

forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. (Docs. 37, 38, 39, 40).

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 46 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 198
2

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 42). She also moved 

for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 43). The Magistrate Judge recommends 

denying that motion, since the Court has already certified that any in forma pauperis

appeal would not be taken in good faith. (Doc. 44). The Magistrate Judge also 

recommends that Plaintiff be advised of the following:

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), a plaintiff may file, within 

thirty (30) days after service of any Order adopting the Report 

and Recommendation, a motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. Callihan 

v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in 

part Floyd v. United States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274 (6th 

Cir. 1997). The plaintiff’s motion must include a copy of the 

affidavit filed in the District Court and the District Court’s 

statement of the reasons for denying pauper status on appeal. 

Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 

The plaintiff is notified that if the plaintiff does not file a 

motion within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of the 

District Court’s decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 

24(a)(5), or fails to pay the required filing fee of $505.00 

within this same time period, the appeal will be dismissed for 

want of prosecution. Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. Once 

dismissed for want of prosecution, the appeal will not be 

reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for pauper status is 

subsequently tendered, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate 

that the plaintiff did not receive notice of the District Court’s 

decision within the time period prescribed for by Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(a)(5). Id.

(Id. at 2). No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for 

doing so has expired.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 46 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 199
3 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is hereby ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 43) is

DENIED; and,

3. This action remains terminated upon the docket of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

1/25/2023 s/Timothy S. Black

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 46 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 200