Oliver, III v. Mental Health Industry et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EDDIE VAN OLIVER, III,
Plaintiff,
Case Number 2:25-cv-1380
v. 	JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on January 8, 2026. (ECF No. 4.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
prosecute. (Id.)
In November 2025, Plaintiff Eddie Van Oliver, III, proceeding pro se, initiated this
action, but did not pay a filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.)
The Magistrate Judge issued an order explaining that a plaintiff may proceed without paying the
initial $405.00 filing fee only if the Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No.
2.)
Twice, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to either move for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis or pay the $405.00 filing fee. (See ECF Nos. 2, 3.) Plaintiff was warned that
“failure to comply . . . will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.” (ECF No.
2.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a properly supported motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Orders, the
Case: 2:25-cv-01380-EAS-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
(ECF No. 4.)
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
the report and recommendation. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the
consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 4, PageID 65.) Plaintiff did not object to the Report
and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS (ECF No. 4) the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case. The Clerk is further
DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Eddie Van Oliver, III at 2302 Middlehurst
Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43219.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2/18/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-01380-EAS-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>