Walker v. Bradley et al

[1]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
:
Maurice L. Walker, :
: Case No. 2:25-cv-01474
Plaintiff, :
v. : Judge Graham
:
Charles E. Bradley, Jr. : Magistrate Judge Deavers
:
Defendant. :
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R,” doc. 3), filed January 12, 2026, which recommended
Plaintiff Maurice L. Walker’s complaint (doc. 1-1) be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. When no objections are timely filed, a district
court reviews a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note.
The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s claims and allegations to be “devoid of
any comprehensible legal or factual basis.” Doc. 3, # 25. By Tuesday, January 27, the
deadline for filing objections to the R&R had passed without any objections from
Plaintiff. On January 29, however, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as “Affidavit
of Truth.” Doc. 4. The Court finds no clear error with the R&R and would reach the
same conclusion upon de novo review in consideration of Plaintiff’s affidavit. Plaintiff
has also filed an application to the clerk for entry of default judgment against the
defendant. Doc. 5. This, too, is devoid of legal or factual basis.
The Court ADOPTS the R&R (doc. 3) and ORDERS that this matter be
DISMISSED. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the
foregoing reasons an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and the
Court would therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DATE: March 3, 2026
Case: 2:25-cv-01474-JLG-EPD Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>