Martin v. Fliehman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARK MARTIN,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-272
vs.
TRAVIS L. FLIEHMAN, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 7); (2) STAYING THIS CASE PENDING
RESOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST PLAINTIFF; (3)
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THIS
CASE; (4) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD
FAITH AND FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE DENIED LEAVE TO APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND (5) ADVISING PLAINTIFF THAT, IF HE DESIRES TO
CONTINUE WITH THIS CASE AFTER DISPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL
CHARGES AGAINST HIM, HE MUST REQUEST THE STAY TO BE LIFTED WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS OF EITHER THE DISPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES
OR THE COMPLETION OF THE APPELLATE PROCESS
______________________________________________________________________________
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.
Deavers (Doc. No. 7), 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 pro se Plaintiff
Mark Martin’s allegations in his 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 (Doc. No. 7) in its entirety; (2) STAYS this case pending resolution of the
1 Plaintiff’s documents and allegations are liberally construed in his favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case: 3:25-cv-00272-MJN-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 01/29/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

criminal charges against Plaintiff; (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively close this
case;2 and (4) 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 Plaintiff should be denied leave to appeal in forma
pauperis.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that, if he desires to continue with this case after disposition of the
criminal charges against him, he must request the stay to be lifted within thirty (30) days of
disposition of the criminal charges. If an appeal is filed in his criminal case, any request to lift the
stay must be filed within thirty (30) days of completion of the appellate process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 28, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
2 This administrative closing of the case is for statistical purposes only and does not affect Plaintiff’s right
to request that the stay be lifted as directed above.
Case: 3:25-cv-00272-MJN-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 01/29/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>