Mausen v. Vanguard Marketing Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JOHN L. MAUSEN,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:26-cv-323
vs.
VANGUARD MARKETING, District Judge Michael J. Newman
CORPORATION et al., Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 5); (2)
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 3); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION (Doc. No. 1); (4) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BY OCTOBER 14, 2026; AND (5) PLACING PLAINTIFF
ON NOTICE THAT SHOULD HE NOT PAY THE REQUIRED FEES, HIS CASE MAY BE
DISMISSED
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, John L. Mausen, brings this case pro se under an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) against Defendants Vanguard Marketing Corporation; the State of Ohio Department
of Commerce; the Governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine; and the Ohio Senate President, Matt Huffman.
Doc. No 1-1. On September 23, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Gentry issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP application
(Doc. No. 1). Doc. No. 3. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. Doc. No. 5. The matter is
now ripe for review.
The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a),
Plaintiff’s objections and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se filings in
his favor and accepting his factual allegations as true, the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objections.
See Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 676 (6th Cir. 2018) (“We liberally
Case: 3:26-cv-00323-MJN-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/14/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

construe pro se filings”). Judge Gentry’s R&R is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The R&R is hereby ADOPTED. As
such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay $405 (the $350 filing fee plus a $55 administrative fee) in
full by October 28, 2026. Plaintiff is hereby placed ON NOTICE that, should he not pay the required
fees by October 28, 2026, his case may be dismissed. Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the
Court CERTIFIES that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff
leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 14, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00323-MJN-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/14/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>