Case Information
*1 Case: 2:25-cv-00288-EAS-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 09/15/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-288
v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers AKUSDA@USDA.GOV, et al. , Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 14, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Juan Pablo Chavez (ECF No. 1) be denied and that Mr. Chavez be ordered to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 9, PageID 41–42.)
The Magistrate Judge explained that the Court previously informed Mr. Chavez that his application did not provide enough information to allow the Court to conduct a satisfactory inquiry into his ability to pay the filing fee. ( Id. PageID 40–41; see also ECF Nos. 6, 8.) Despite an extension to cure the deficiencies, he has not provided the requested information, and the Court remains unable to conduct a satisfactory inquiry into his ability to pay the filing fee. ( Id. )
Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in
Case: 2:25-cv-00288-EAS-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 09/15/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 49 the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn , 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Mr. Chavez was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so (ECF No. 9, PageID 42), but he did not file a timely objection. Accordingly, he waived a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the recommendations stated therein. The Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff Juan Pablo Chavez’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and he is ORDERED to pay the filing fee within 14 DAYS of this Court’s Order. Mr. Chavez is warned that his failure to pay the filing fee by the deadline above may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Juan Pablo Chavez at 334 S. Main Street, #1612, Los Angeles, CA 90013.
This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9/15/2025 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE