govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_26-cv-00384-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI 
TIMOTHY LEE RUCKER, as next 
friend and on behalf of TRAVIS LEE 
BURTON, 
Plaintiff, 
V. 
INSPECTOR JON TABOR, et al., 
Defendants. 

Judge Matthew W. McFarland 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4) 
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and 
Recommendation (Doc. 4), as well as Plaintiff's Objections (Docs. 7, 10), Addendum (Doc. 
8), Declarations (Docs. 9, 10), Motions for Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. 5, 12), and 
Notices (Docs. 10, 11). 
The Court conducts de novo review as to any portions of the Report and 
Recommendation properly objected to by a party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 
72(b)(3). "The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections," however, "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). Accordingly, "a party must 
identify each issue in the [Report and Recommendation] to which they object with 
sufficient clarity, or else that issue is forfeited ." Price v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 649 F. 
Supp. 3d 598,604 (S.D. Ohio 2023) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,380 (6th Cir. 1995)). 
Case: 1:26-cv-00384-MWM-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/03/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing this case since Plaintiff lacks 
standing and the ability to bring this litigation as next friend on behalf of Travis Burton. 
(Report, Doc. 4, Pg. ID 69.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge reached this conclusion for 
two reasons: (1) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest that Burton is "unable to 
pursue litigation on his own behalf," and (2) "more importantly, 'a non-lawyer cannot 
serve as a 'next friend' unless she, herself, is represented by counsel."' (Id. (quoting 
Randleman next friend of Swain v. Sullivan, No. 3:25-CV-2586, 2026 WL 391153, at *1 (N.D. 
Ohio Feb. 12, 2026))). Although Plaintiff now brings more assertions as to why Burton 
has been unable to litigate this matter on his own behalf- at least prior to his recent 
transfer to a new facility, Plaintiff does not address the second thread of the Magistrate 
Judge's analysis. (See Objections, Docs. 7, 10; Plaintiff's Deel., Docs. 9, 10.) Namely, 
Plaintiff has failed to specifically object to dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff is a non­
attorney attempting to improperly proceed prose on behalf of Burton. See Cowherd v. 
Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (discussing that a party's failure to file specific 
objections generally amounts to waiver); Jackson v. City of Memphis, No. 15-2313, 2015 WL 
7162195, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2015). 
In any event, Plaintiff's filings further confirm that Plaintiff is not an attorney but, 
rather, claims to be a "designated outside advocate" attempting to "proceed[] prose" as 
a next friend of Burton. (Plaintiff's Deel., Doc. 9, Pg. ID 91-92; Objections, Doc. 7, Pg. ID 
81-82.) Accordingly, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's well-supported 
conclusion that Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se as a next friend of Burton in this matter. 
See Randleman, 2026 WL 391153, at *1-2; Carre v. Nutton, No. 25-CV-11628, 2025 WL 
2 
Case: 1:26-cv-00384-MWM-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/03/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2166009, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2025); Quevedo-Palomino v. Warden of Calhoun Cnty. Jail, 
No. 26-11064, 2026 WL 962397, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2026); Martinez v. Warden, No. 
4:26-CV-773, 2026 WL 1242933, at *2 (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2026). "The £act that a minor or 
incompetent person must be represented by a next friend, guardian ad litem, or other 
fiduciary [under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2)] does not alter the principle 
embodied in [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 that a non-attorney is not allowed to represent another 
individual in federal court litigation without the assistance of counsel." Berrios v. New 
York City Housing Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 134 (2d. Cir. 2009); see Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 
963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002); Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F.3d 228, 231 (6th Cir. 2015); H.C. v. 
Fleming Cnty. Kentucky Bd. of Educ., No. 17-6269, 2018 WL 11589034, at *2 (6th Cir. July 11, 
2018). 
As a final matter, Plaintiff requests that, "[t]o the extent the Court finds additional 
factual support necessary, Plaintiff respectfully [seeks] leave to amend rather than 
dismissal with prejudice." (Objections, Doc. 7, Pg. ID 80.) However, Plaintiff does not 
offer any proposed amendments that would alter the aforementioned analysis; notably, 
Plaintiff does not contest the bar against "next friend" litigation without an attorney. That 
being said, given the nature of the recommended dismissal in this matter, the Court will 
order this matter dismissed without prejudice. 
For all these reasons, the Court ORDERS the following: 
1) Plaintiff's Objections (Docs. 7, 10) are OVERRULED; 
2) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED and MODIFIED; 
specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 
3 
Case: 1:26-cv-00384-MWM-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/03/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 5) is 
DENIED AS MOOT; 
3) Additionally, Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT; and 
4) This matter is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT C: f1~I~ n 
By:114 -vt.?/4:~ 
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND 
4 
Case: 1:26-cv-00384-MWM-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/03/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight