Bennett, Jr. v. Gerace, II et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT M. BENNETT, JR.
PHD, LISW,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOMINICK S. GERACE, II, et
al.,
Defendants.
:
:
Case No. 2:26-cv-209
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 2) recommending that the Court deny the Motion
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Mot., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff Robert M.
Bennett, Jr., PhD, LISW timely filed his objection to the R&R. (Obj., ECF No. 3.)
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation,
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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In his Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Dr. Bennett
represents that he makes $ 20.49 per hour working for Columbus City Schools and
had adjusted gross income in excess of $ 60,000 in 2025. (Mot., PAGEID # 1.) He
Case: 2:26-cv-00209-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/19/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
further represents that he has $ 2,500 in cash and more than $ 215,000 in assets.
(Id., PAGEID # 2.) He does have $ 3,200 in monthly expenses and nearly $ 75,000 in
outstanding student loans.1 (Id.)
The Magistrate Judge found that Dr. Bennett has not satisfied the standard
for avoiding the filing fee, reasoning:
While his monthly expenses outweigh his monthly income, Plaintiff
represents that he currently has more than enough cash on hand or in
an account to pay the one-time filing fee. Based on these
representations, it does not appear that paying the fee would cause
Plaintiff to be deprived of the necessities of life. See [Adkins v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)]; see also Bush
v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:05-CV-0667, 2007 WL 4365381, at
*1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007) [(Kemp, M.J.)] (noting that “[i]n forma
pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent prisoners or for
persons . . . who would truly be required to forego food, shelter, clothing,
or some other necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources
to paying a judicial filing fee”).
(R&R, PAGEID # 12.)
Dr. Bennett objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, arguing that if he is
required to pay the filing fee, he would have less cash available “to pay monthly
expenses that already exceed his monthly income.” (Obj, PAGEID # 14.) He further
asserts that he “clearly document[ed] that payment of the filing fee ‘would cause
Plaintiff to be deprived of the necessities of life,’ as plaintiff’s monthly expenses
outweigh his monthly income.” (Id.)
Dr. Bennett’s objection is not well-taken. This Court has “routinely denied in
forma pauperis status to litigants who have significant income and assets such as a
1 Although Dr. Bennett reports a $ 1,500 mortgage payment and $ 700 non-
student loan payment, he does not quantify the corresponding debts in Section 8
(debt and financial obligations).
Case: 2:26-cv-00209-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/19/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
home and vehicles, even if it would require some financial sacrifice in order for the
applicant to pay the filing fee.” Bush, 2007 WL 4365381, at *1. Dr. Bennett “simply
does not fall into th[e] category” of those indigent persons for whom in forma
pauperis status is reserved. Id.
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2) is ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. Dr. Bennett’s Objection (ECF No. 3) is OVERRULED and his Motion
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.
Dr. Bennett is ORDERED to pay the Court’s filing fee within thirty days
of the date of this Order if he wishes to proceed in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:26-cv-00209-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/19/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>