Dunaway v. City of Miamisburg, Ohio et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ANTHONY M. DUNAWAY, SR.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:26-cv-116
vs.
CITY OF MIAMISBURG, OHIO, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 3); (2)
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 2); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION (Doc. No. 1); (4) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BY NOVEMBER 5, 2026; AND (5) PUTTING PLAINTIFF
ON NOTICE THAT SHOULD HE NOT PAY THE REQUIRED FEES, HIS CASE MAY BE
DISMISSED
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Anthony M. Dunaway, Sr. brings this case pro se under an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) against Defendants, City of Miamisburg, Ohio; Officer Megan Simpson;
Montgomery County Ohio; and the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners. Doc. No 1-1. On
July 15, 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. 2.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. Doc. No. 3.
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 to Plaintiff’s objections.
See Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 676 (6th Cir. 2018) (“We 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).
Case: 3:26-cv-00116-MJN-CHG Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/16/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

The Court notes, as did Judge Gentry (see Doc. No. 2 at PageID 13–14), that Plaintiff has filed
several IFP applications in other pending cases in this Court and those applications contain
inconsistent financial information. Moreover, in his objection to the R&R, Plaintiff includes an
affidavit in which his grandmother, Judith Dunaway, with whom he resides, testifies that he is no
longer contributing toward household expenses. Doc. No. 6-2 at PageID 48. As Judge Gentry
explains in the R&R, when Plaintiff’s housing expense is set aside, he has more than sufficient funds
to pay the filing fee.
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 November 5, 2026. Plaintiff is hereby ON NOTICE that, should he not pay the required fees
by November 5, 2026, his case may be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 16, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00116-MJN-CHG Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/16/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>