UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DAVID WHITESEL, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:25-mc-2 vs. KELLY SILER, District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry Defendant. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 3); (2) DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3) CERTIFYING
THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND FINDING THAT PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE DENIED LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND (4)
TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET _______________________________________________________________________________________
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Caroline H. Gentry (Doc.
No. 3), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties have not filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has
expired. Upon careful review of the foregoing, and construing Plaintiffs’ pro se allegations in their favor,1
the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, the Court:
(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety; (2) DISMISSES
this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3) CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal
of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and finds that Plaintiffs should be denied leave to appeal
in forma pauperis; and (4) TERMINATES this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 4, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge
1 As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiffs’ documents and allegations are liberally construed in their favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case: 3:25-mc-00002-MJN-CHG Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/04/25 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>