govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_26-cv-00422-1

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
DAVID CRAIG MATHEIS, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
BUTLER COUNTY SHERIFF’S 
OFFICE, 
Respondent. 

Judge Michael R. Barrett 
ORDER 
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendation (“R&R”) of May 1 4, 2026. (Doc. 9). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 636(b)(1)(C), proper notice has been afforded to the parties that they could forfeit
rights on appeal if they failed to file proper objections to the R&R in a timely manner. 
See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 
F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (holding that a failure to file objections generally waives
the right to appeal the district court’s adoption of an R&R). Tanyqua Oliver-Matheis 
timely objects on behalf of Petitioner David Craig Matheis , (Doc. 11), but the Court 
will overrule the objection and adopt the R&R in full for the following reasons. 
On May 1, the Magistrate Judge docketed an order directing Petitioner to show 
cause why this matter should not be dismissed. (Doc. 3). Specifically, “ it appears the 
Petition was prepared, signed, and filed by Tanyqua Oliver-Matheis in the purported 
Case: 1:26-cv-00422-MRB-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/15/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
 
capacity of Petitioner’s spouse and attorney in fact. Additionally there are many 
assertions of fact made in the Petition as of the personal knowledge of Ms. Oliver -
Matheis that are or may be material to the case but are not sworn to. ” (Id., PageID 
47). And because “federal law does not authorize a person to appear by way of a 
spouse or attorney -in-fact,” the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to show cause 
why the matter should not be dismissed because it was filed by a person not 
authorized to do so. (Id., PageID 48). 
Oliver-Matheis objects, arguing that she is permitted to file on behalf of her 
husband under the doctrine laid out in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), 
and the two -part test discussed in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) . Specifically, 
she argues that her husband is completely barred from accessing the courts and she 
is “the only person truly dedicated to keeping [her] husband safe and mentally stable 
not matter what [she has] to file or who [she has] to legally threaten with a valid 
lawsuit.” (Doc. 11, PageID 115). 
Magistrate Judges are authorized to decide both dispositive and non -
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
72. When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R on a dispositive matter, 
the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that 
has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Upon review, the Court “may 
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1). 
Case: 1:26-cv-00422-MRB-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/15/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
 
But “[t]he filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the 
requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” 
Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 
F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection 
requirement.”). And the Court “need not provide de novo review where the objections 
are ‘frivolous, conclusive or general.’” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637-38 (6th Cir. 
1986) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 
1982)). 
The Supreme Court in Whitmore provided that “‘next friend’ standing is by no 
means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of 
another,” and established that a putative next friend “must provide an adequate 
explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability —why 
the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action.” 
495 U.S. at 163. And although some of the petitioners in Rasul were represented by 
family members acting as next friends, those petitioners were detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay who had never been “charged with wrongdoing, permitted to 
consult with counsel, or provided access to the courts or any other tribunal.” 542 U.S. 
at 472. 
At most, Oliver-Matheis appears to argue that she is entitled to prosecute this 
habeas action as a next friend because her husband’s mail is delayed in an 
“unjustified and arbitrary” manner and she is not satisfied with the services of her 
husband’s appointed attorneys. (Doc. 11, PageID 113). And because the rest of her 
Case: 1:26-cv-00422-MRB-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/15/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 
 
filing merely presents arguments apparently related to Petitioner’s underlying 
criminal proceeding in state court, the objection does not preserve de novo review or 
serve to meaningfully address the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 
 For the foregoing reason, the objection, (Doc. 11), is OVERRULED, and the 
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 9), is ADOPTED in full. This matter 
is DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith, and 
therefore DENIES leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 /s/ Michael R. Barrett 
 Michael R. Barrett 
 United States District Judge 
Case: 1:26-cv-00422-MRB-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/15/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight