Ballard v. United States Congress

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
CHARLES BALLARD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00306
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In September 2025, Plaintiff Charles Ballard submitted documents to this Court to
institute this case, Ballard v. United States Congress, Case No. 3:25-cv-00306, as well as
Ballard v. Ohio Secretary of State, Case No. 3:25-cv-00308. He is proceeding in both
cases without the assistance of counsel. The cases are currently pending before different
judicial officers.
Plaintiff sought to proceed in both cases in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and without
paying the filings costs to proceed. His IFP applications in both cases appear identical.
(Compare Doc. No. 1 in Case No. 3:25-cv-00306 with Doc. No. 1 in Case No. 3:25-cv-
00308.)
This Court recently denied Plaintiff’s IFP application in Case No. 3:25-cv-00308,
after requiring him to provide additional information about his financial situation. See
Ballard v. Ohio Secretary of State, No. 3:25-cv-308, 2025 WL 2969644 (S.D. Ohio Oct.
22, 2025) (Silvain, M.J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 3159384 (S.D.
Case: 3:25-cv-00306-MJN-CHG Doc #: 2 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Ohio Nov. 12, 2025) (Rose, J.) (adopting Report and Recommendation that noted
Plaintiff’s “total yearly income from all sources” was $132,344.00” and found that
Plaintiff had not shown he was unable to pay for the costs of this litigation and still
provide for himself). (Doc. Nos. 6, 7 in Case No. 3:25-cv-00308.)
The Court should resolve Plaintiff’s IFP application in this case, Case No. 3:25-
cv-00306, the same way. For the reasons the Court discussed in Case No. 3:25-cv-00308,
it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 1 herein) be DENIED and that he be ORDERED to pay the $405.00
filing fee within 30 days of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the filing fee may result in a Report and
Recommendation to the District Judge that this matter be dismissed for lack of
prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after
being served with this Report and Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the
portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
Case: 3:25-cv-00306-MJN-CHG Doc #: 2 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part
upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly
arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge
otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN
days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on
appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 3:25-cv-00306-MJN-CHG Doc #: 2 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>