USA v. Mullins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID PRICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:23-cr-00662-24
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 29, 2025, a grand jury returned a third superseding indictment
charging Defendant David Price and others with several criminal charges. 	(ECF
No. 335.) Mr. Price seeks a bill of particulars (ECF No. 356), which the United States
opposes (ECF No. 362). The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
that the Court deny Mr. Price’s motion. 	(ECF No. 367.) 	In the report and
recommendation, the Magistrate Judge summarized the parties’ positions and the
relevant contents of the third superseding indictment. 	(Id., PageID #2333–35.) 	In
short, the third superseding indictment charges Mr. Price with RICO conspiracy,
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances,
two counts of kidnapping in aid of racketeering, and kidnapping. 	(ECF No. 335,
¶¶ 1–245, 249–53, PageID #2087–2142 & #2144–45.)
In his motion for a bill of particulars, Mr. Price seeks: (1) “[t]he time the alleged
offense(s) was/were committed”; (2) “[t]he place where the alleged offense(s) was/were
Case: 1:23-cr-00662-JPC Doc #: 376 Filed: 12/01/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
committed”; and (3) “[t]he specific conduct alleged which constitutes the offense as
charged in the Indictment.” (ECF No. 356, PageID #2286.)
I. 	The Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge determined that the third superseding indictment “sets
forth the five charges involving Price (Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) with particularity.”
(ECF No. 367, PageID #2334.) 	The Magistrate Judge observed that the charges
provided specific dates or ranges, as well as locations, for the alleged offenses to allow
Mr. Price to discern when and where the alleged conduct occurred. (Id.) Further, the
Magistrate Judge determined that, because “much of the alleged conduct involves the
exchange of information via text messages,” the need for knowing when and where
the offenses occurred was negated. 	(Id.) 	Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded
that the third superseding indictment provided “ample description” with “sufficient
particularity” 	regarding 	the 	alleged 	conduct 	in 	a 	“plain, 	concise, 	and 	definite
manner.” 	(Id.) 	Therefore, 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	determined 	that 	the 	third
superseding indictment contained enough particularity and detail for Mr. Price to
“prepare his defense and to obviate the risk of unfair surprise at trial.” (Id.)
II. 	Objections
The report and recommendation advised that any objections were due fourteen
days after service and notified Mr. Price that failure to timely object may waive the
right 	to 	appeal 	the 	Court’s 	order. 	(Id., 	PageID 	#2335.) 	The 	report 	and
recommendation was docketed on November 14, 2025. (Id.) Nonetheless, Mr. Price
failed to object to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Under the law
of this Circuit, “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
Case: 1:23-cr-00662-JPC Doc #: 376 Filed: 12/01/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
results in a waiver of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs
parties of that potential waiver.” 	United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878
(6th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th
Cir. 1981); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (holding that the Sixth
Circuit’s waiver rule is within its supervisory powers and “[t]here is no indication
that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to
review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed”).
The Sixth Circuit clarified this rule: 	failure to object is not a waiver, but a
forfeiture. Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (“We clarify that
forfeiture, rather than waiver, is the relevant term here.”). 	This is so because
“[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.” 	United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733
(1993); Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 894 n.2 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring)
(noting 	the 	Supreme 	Court’s 	cases 	“often 	used 	[waiver 	and 	forfeiture]
interchangeably,” but that “[t]he two are really not the same.”). 	This difference
matters because forfeited issues may, in certain circumstances, nevertheless “be
considered on appeal.” 	Berkshire, 928 F.3d at 530 (citing Harris v. Klare, 902 F.3d
630, 635–36 (6th Cir. 2018)).
In any event, the time for filing objections to the report and recommendation
has passed. Mr. Price neither objected, nor provided some legitimate reason why he
failed to do so. 	Further, upon the Court’s independent review of the record, there
does 	not 	appear 	to 	be 	clear 	error 	in 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation.
Case: 1:23-cr-00662-JPC Doc #: 376 Filed: 12/01/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation (ECF No. 367) and DENIES Mr. Price’s motion for a bill of
particulars. (ECF No. 356.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:23-cr-00662-JPC Doc #: 376 Filed: 12/01/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>