Whitesel v. Siler

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>