Grant v. Grant Seabron et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PATRICIA A. GRANT, PH.D.,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-391
vs.
DEBORAH ELAINE GRANT SEABRON, 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
PH.D, Individually and as Executor/ 	Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Administrator of The Estate of Burnett
Grant, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 6); (2) ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 5);
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; (4) ORDERING
PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BY MARCH 31,
2026; (5) PUTTING PLAINTIFF ON NOTICE THAT SHOULD SHE NOT PAY THE
REQUIRED FEES, HER CASE MAY BE DISMISSED; (6) CERTIFYING THAT AN
APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; AND (7) DENYING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Patricia A. Grant, Ph.D, brings this case pro se under an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) against Defendants Deborah Elaine Grant Seabron, Ph.D, and attorney
Johnny W. Thomas. Doc. No 1-1. On January 10, 2026, Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry issued
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s
IFP application. 	Doc. No. 5. 	Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. 	Doc. No. 6. Thus, her
objections to the R&R are 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
her favor and accepting her 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
Case: 3:25-cv-00391-MJN-CHG Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

liberally 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 March 31, 2026. Plaintiff is hereby ON NOTICE that, should she not pay the required fees
by March 31, 2026, her case may be dismissed.
Finally, no appeal is presently available in this case because this Order is not a final appealable
order and Plaintiff’s claims remain pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; cf. Sultaana v. Jerman, No. 1:15-
cv-382, 2020 WL 13889761, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Cleaver v. Elias, 852 F.2d 266,
267 (7th Cir. 1988) (“An appeal is possible in the absence of [a Rule 58 final judgment] only if the
district court has clearly disposed of all pending matters”)). Because of this and for the reasons set
forth herein, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order
would not be taken in good faith, and consequently, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal this Order in
forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 11, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00391-MJN-CHG Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>