# Brown v. State of Ohio

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · September 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11135504

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** September 9, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11135504

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

JAMES V. BROWN, : Case No. 1:25-cv-176
:
Plaintiff, :
: Judge Michael R. Barrett
vs. :
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
:

STATE OF OHIO, HIGHLAND :
COUNTY PROSECUTOR, ANEEKA :
COLLINS, et al., :
:
Defendants.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are two Motions filed by Plaintiff. (Docs. 29, 30). The Court grants the
first and recommends denying the second.
First, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Electronic Filing Rights (Doc. 29). The “grant of
electronic filing privileges is a privilege granted to pro se litigants in the discretion of this Court.”
Needham v. Butler Cty. Jail, No. 1:19-cv-294, 2019 WL 5883643, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2019).
The Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff may register for e-filing through PACER:
https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//E-File%20Registration%20-%20Pro%20Se.pdf.
However, Plaintiff is WARNED that the Court may revoke this permission at any time should
Plaintiff not conform filings to the Federal and Local Rules.
Plaintiff’s second motion is a Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 30). In it, he asks for a
default judgment against Jerry Oyer for not responding to the summons that was returned as
executed on August 7, 2025. (Doc. 20). However, the Undersigned allowed Plaintiff to serve
Jerry Oyer as an Interested Party for the purposes of discovery, not as a Defendant. (Docs. 12,
15). Even more, the current recommendation before the District Judge is that all claims against
Jerry Oyer be dismissed. (Doc. 12). Therefore, default judgment is not appropriate here.
Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment be
DENIED. However, given Plaintiff’s apparent concerns about receiving the discovery the Court
has allowed him to request from the Interested Parties in this case, the Court ORDERS a joint
status report from Plaintiff and the Interested Parties within fourteen (14) days on their progress.

The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order and Report and Recommendation on
Jerry Oyer at the service address identified by Plaintiff. (Doc. 16 at 3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 9, 2025 s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11135504. Public record. Not legal advice.