IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Ronald E. Harris II, •

Appellant •

V.

Chillicothe Correctional Instutional.

Robin Knab •

w"lu0)VAL

On Appeal from the RossCourt of AppealsFourth Appellate District

Court of Appeals Case No.11 CA 00 3287

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION

OF APPELLANT RONALD E.HARRIS II

Ronald E. Harris II (537-076)(Prose)Chillicothe CorrectionalP.O. BOX 5500Chillicothe, Ohio 45601(740) 774-7055FAX 774-7055ross correctional cci @ e-mail

Counsel For Appellant, Pro se

Thomas Miller (0075960)Assistant Attorney GeneralCriminal Justice SectionCorrections Litigation Unit150 East Gay Street 16 th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 614-728-9327WWW. Ohio Attorney General.gov

Counsel For Appellees, et alMuncipality Ross CountyCivil Service Commission

APR 19 ?016"

CLERK OF COURTI SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PG

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERALINTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.............. 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ...........................................3

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION OF LAW ................................ 4

Proposition oF Law No. I: The Rights to Property Return ofProperty are a Subject Of Constutional Amendments Pursuant To

R.C 2307.61 Civil Action Damages of theft & Constutional AmendementV Composition For Property. Intellectual Property Copy Rights,,,,,,,,,,,

Proposition Of Law No.II: Rights To Certifying a Conflict as

with Intrest towards Return of property R.C. U.S.C.A. 3721 Study Drones

Electronics Survellance RC 2933.51 Thru 2933.66 Confusion & State RecordsConstutional Amendement IV ................................................. 6

CONCLUSION ................................................................. 7

7CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES .....................................................

APPENDIX

Opinion Of The Ross County Court Of Appeals ( Mar 20 2012) ............. 8

Opiniop Of The U.s. District Court Southern District Ohio ColumbusJune 21, 2010................. ............................ ...g.........9

Opinion Of THe United States Court Of Appeals For THe Sixth 10Circuit (June 18, 2010) ................................................

Opinion Of The United States Court Supreme Court WA DC (April 17 2011)..11

EXPLANTION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL

INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTUTIONAL Question ..............

This case presents the very core of Anti Trust with-in Public office

(1) Antitrust/Antitrust Guidelines for licensing of Intellectual

Property. A set of criteria, jointly issued by the Anti-trust Division

of the U.S. Justice Department and the FTC, that those agencies

apply in deciding whether to initiate an investigation or inforce

actions as a result of restriction in patent, copyright, Trade

secret, and know-how licenses $herman Act P°C' 2721.12 (2012)

Declatory Judgement force effect (13) PROPERTY

(i)

(2) This case arises from the attempts of undercitizenship Ronald

E. Harris II with-in Prior interenship form 2006 Urbana

University, Uxbana Ohio into copy rights request for poisions

fi4hting, Poisions Cure for humankind germ killer Anti Biotic

Syru.m FILED Patent And Trademark Office Alexandria VA Certified Mail No.

7002-2410-0003-3046-0943 April 14 2008 Chillicothe Post Office Signature

(3) With respect to privacy. Photray return Contrand Process to Champaign

County Venue VAMS 56 5-021 Murder Nude Body 36 CFR 1270 Law Enforcement

Compesation for property and or AGREVIED PERSONS Child PhoTo;.: Nude

Charles Wolf, Jr etc., etn al, petitioners V. Robert Mcdonell,etc No.73

679 Argued April 22 1974 Decieded June 26, 1974

Requesting to Supplement Prior Filings

Asking why the very core belief and trust of undercitizenship Personel

can be violated by trust that involves the very provision of rehablition

SEcurit;yEXperts that should provide (a) TReatment Plan decision information

And or rentry programing for better healther x Offenders. Seeking deno vo

REview under postal matters 28 U.S.C.A.1339 FILING DELIVERY, AND

handling of said matters as Photoray return, Mail delivery, Ihs Medcial

assist, and Anti trust of professionallism of doing so. Retali a;tion complai

CC 1-02-10-000074/CC -09-1801 Cash Slip 7-13-01 In Sufficient S.C.T. Prac R 2

3 (C) Appelals FROm THe Power Sitting Board See AD 2009-06982 Small Claims

On April 15 2009 Certified Mail Number 7006 0810 0006 6684 4361 WAS

forward to Darlene L. Alter & Paukla Alter UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES

SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT TO SURITY DELIVERY :"FREE OF PRIVACY VIOLATINs

AND RETURN Clerk CHampaign County Muncipal Court HOUSE.

Savory V US 604 Fd 929 42 U.S.C.A. 3721 Study Drones Electronics

Survellance Agrived Persons Child Photos

The very places to resolve griveneces, Hardships, Rights from confusion

enviroment problems Consulant Law Enforcement 36 CFR 1270

On or about April 14, 2008 Certified Mail • Number 7002-2410-0003-3046

09'43Signature Card April 17 2008 To Pasent and trademark office Alexandi.:^ia

VA FAX NUMBER Sent Ms. Durham (579) 270-9813 5 pages 8/8/2010 vva Chapter 281

requesting cop ^'ok,_; COULD BE COPIED INTelluctual Property Copy

Right SD 40 5ILCJ5501 Seeking Compesatabn for property

Does Under citizenship have a f:reedom of speach & Freedom to the arts

to create support provide support for our AFghan Troops, Hosipiatals

Cancer Patents, SEe death rate reports, Aids Patent, Loacl News USA today

all to say the enabling and denying of Madl returned to sender, said to

be not deliverable, See Opinion Ronald E Harris, II, Vs. Warden, Chillicothe

Correctional Instutional et, al Civil Action 2:09-cv-956 Order Judge Smith

Can the Undercitizenship of The DEpartment Of REhabilitation, be denied

Threatened, Murdered, Harrased, Retilated aganist and not usery the

Constution of the State,and THe Constution Of THe UnitedrrStates Of

America to provide Pharmarcy and antio Biotic Syrum that stop the very

death rate on report of United States America Citizens. Constution

Amemendements %ISZ Provides Equal Protection of the law with the AR"S

Controlling Attachmenting EDnity.Post Office.Postmaster.Liability towards

all citizens delivery of mail, Can one say the right to pursue life liberty

and hapiness,is a freedom of speech to share with Fello America, not told

by united states Goverment,we do not hold the truth to be allowed by the

INCAPACTED, FOR A CRIME STILL Worty of appeal. Second district Appeal 2009-CA-3E

The under citizenship of modern society with-in College TRainning, Drug

REabilition, reform to request businesses, Jobs, Esponagements, Clemency

from the very trainning provided from THe Department Of REhablit^?tion

And Corrections. Earned Credit AHS' 5120-2-06 (4) College Programs (5) Vocaticnal

Sucess after Incaration is common for the pure in heart to pursue and

achieve. Private Employment AR'S 5120-3-04

As to say in God we trust that A Stae Goverment, Federal Goverment would

not let people die just to desplay some kind of Authority Ego towards the

very cure of death towards our patent of today and yesterday.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S Recieved April 27 2011

IN RE RONALD E HARRIS II VS. ROBIN KNAB, WARDENM,CHILLICOTHE REspondantIS)et,a,

(2)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE FACTS

THis case araise from the attempt of Ronald E Harris II Inaccordance

with RC 2721.12 (B) Property prescribing litigation towards Warden

of Chillicothe Cross Referencing Captioned case 3:09-cv-956 to establish

and confirm the neglance, enabling, and miscarrage of justice towards

undercitizenship Consulant Business owner Ronald E harris II.

Supplementing orginal filings, Undercitizenship Ronald E harris II

WITH-in AR'S libality, Attempting to perform duty beyound the Ohio

Department Of Rehabilition insight, was EnablOd, Whitewasked, and denied

his core Constutional Amendment Rights Just Composition for property

Amendmend V Jury Trial USCA CONST AMEND VI.

The mail removal from inmate Ronald E harris II, FROM REGULAR Flawfull

clerks is just a continued schemea to undermind a more internal fact

finding process that promotes Bias, Prejudice, discriminative Enabling

Act 43 Clea ST L Rev 115 (19851 With-in AR'S 5120-3-04 Private Employment

42 U.S.C.A. & 1983, State Libility Since Oklahoma City.

On April 142008 Undercitizenship Request Copy could be copied Intellectual

Property Rights 40 5ILC5501 Conflicts of Law &142 (2) (1971)Wit-in

Purusant to 35U.S.C.A. Application & Number Alexandria VA Patent And

Trademark o-;Efice. see access to court protection with-in filing 28 U.s.c.a

Postal Matter attachment to States Liablity Ednity. Certifieul mail number

7002-2410-0003-3046 0943 Cure for Aids, Cancer, All Germs to humankind

Anti Trust 15 U.S.C.A. Mail Removed not even rejection Notice,removed by

Ohio DEpartment Of REhabilition And Corrections. Filing Serviced to

United States DEpartment Of Justice FBI Apri18 2008 Clarksburg VA-Columbus

OHio. 35 U.S.C.A. .164. Signature Requuirements

On April 15 2008 the undercitizenship Ronald E Harris II filed, REturned

Evidence Property towards Champaign County Child PHONOGRAPHS For support

of local Review with in very core Corrections Rehabilition, Treatment

RIB Sanction Committie Warden Chillicothe but charged with AR's 5120-9

55 Contraband Mjor returned to orginal owner rights to privacy.

(3)

Seeing return mail as out going mail AR'S 5120-9-18 (C) sent legal

Printed Mail (C) fro inspection (C) Central Office MADE Legal mail

review signature mail, not Contempt mail towards A judge. AR 5120-9-56-1

Mails to defraud only if mailing were an intergual part of execution

of fraud are were incident is essential part of scheme did they fall

ban of federal FRaud Statues U.S.C.A. Amend viii Excessive Punshment

towards charges Mail to defraud a judge 90 days minor Contraband.

SADINE V CONNER 515 U.S. 472 2293 U.S. HAWAII 1995 JUNE 19 (APPROX 33

APPROX 33 Pages) & WOLF V MCDONALD 418 U.S. 539 94 S.C.T. 2963 US NEB

1974 JULY 26

Please Submitted Captioned Case Brief Harris V Warden Of Chillicothe

3:09-cv-956 Dec latvry Judgement review Procedually Defaualted Rule 10.6

In closing Supplementing explantion towards alternative writs Rule 10.11

ASKING FOR JURISITICION TOWARDS Master Commission Under Article IV

Section 2 (B) Of THe Ohio Constution (1) Quo Wareanto & or Mandamus

Director/Commissioners/Patent And Trademark Commissioner-Ferderal Department

Of JusAice FBI Director Muller-Food And Drug Administator St6arnDirector

Energy Commissioner, Memo Corsopendence. THE STATE EX REL OHIO ACADEMY

OF TRIAL LAWYERS et, al V SHEWARD JUDGE, et,alNo. 97-2419 Supreme Court

OHIO 86 3d 451 1999 123 715 NE 2d 1062 1999 Ohio Lexus 2580 September

29 1998 August 16 1999 Decided Mandumus

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF WROPOSITIONS OF LAW

Proposition of law No. I: Rights to property compesation for property

Subject to RC 2315.19 Compesation Civ. R 3 Venue (A) (B) Uniform Code

Commercial Code proper . Civ 19 Relief from Judgement Under S.C.T.

Prac R 2.1 (B) Appeal from Court of Appeals Appendix 2009-CA 36 Second Distril

An appeal that involves review of the action of the board, the Board

of tax appeals THe Public Utilities Commission, or the Power sitting

board invokes the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court. The

Supreme Court will rendeT Judgement after the Parties are given an

(4)

opportunity to brief the case on the merits in accordance with

S.C.T. Prac R 6.1 Through 6.8 and 19.6.

(A) Power Sitting Board CHillicothe Corrections S.C.T. Prac R 17.1 TReferrof cases for mediation (A) S.C.T. 4.2

(B) TAX INVASION TAX ID NUMBER BOARD OF TAX APPEALS "47 TT_R_C_A_ 1961

(C) Public Utilitie Commission 100 Independence Ave SW WashingtonDc 20585-10

(0) ENGERY Commission/ Atomics Commisioner Stephen Chu Washington DC

(E) Patent And Trademark Commission' /FOOD AND DRUG Commission

ANTI TRUST COMMISSION Rookery Building 209 South Lasalle Street Suit 60Chicage. Ill 60604 February 4 2010 Citizens Complaint CC Cleveland Offic

Captioined Case 3:09-cv-956 requesting RC 1901.02 Juristriction

Civ r 19 relief from judaement CRIM RULE 14 Relief from Prejudicial

attendence EXTRA JUDI'CIAL ACTIVITIES THe Supreme Court Of Ohio

ALL STAND INTO THE PRIOR BRIEFING OF BRIEF FILING TOWARDS MEMO REGUARDING

Appellant Ronald E harris II seeking Writt Of Mandamus to move the FCC

VIOLATION FROM SAID ARBiTION DECISION TRUE FILING AR'S 5120-3-04 Private47 U.B.C.A. & 155 FCC Commolioner Filed January 17 2010 WASHINGTON DC:

emplovment usery Property Rights 40 5ILC,:01 AntiTrust.

Inclosure The Departement Of Rehabilitations and Corrections has

perticipated in the removel of Intellectual Prop:rties, filings and

Completions Of REturns denying all said acess to courts disclosure

Asking for The Honorable Ohio Supreme Court to grant Jursidiction

of Appellant Ronald E:iHarris II Prose under supplemented filings want

for Jursidiction RC & 1901_02 Due to investigative evidence RC 1304.26

Banking Libality RC & 1304.08 RC 2953.02 'Review of Judgement.

Prisioners retain protection from arbatory state actions even with-in

expected condition, of confinement other than due process protection

prisioners may invoke first and eight amendement & equal protection

clauses of the fourth amendementm, when appropriatully and may draw upon

internal Prision Grivenecs procedure and state Judicial REview when

available 14 Amend Rights Sadine V Conner 515 U.S. 472 115 S.C.T ' ' 2293

U.S. Hawaii.

(5)

Proposition Of Law No II: Rights to certify a conflict As with Intrest

towards Return Of Property 42 U.C.A. 3721 Study Drones Electronic

Survellance & Survellance laws consulanting LAW Enforcement RC& 2933.51

Thru RC & 2933.66 36 CFR 1270.50.

Please see Captioned Case 3:09-cv-956 Harris V Warden Chillicothe.

Sixth Circuit & United State Supreme Court Washington DC, April 122011 USAP6No. 10-:"t3 i

On Ap.ril 15 2008 review, evidence submitted, AND SIGNATURE CARD verity

Harris DElivered property for closure of clybourn OPerations for review

under REqusted Superior Respondent along with Child Phot0S_ 35 U.S.C.A.

& 135 Interferences 47 U.S.C.A. & 155 FCC SAVORY V US 604 Fd 929

AR'S; 5120-9-55 & 56 Major Contraband mailwith in Sttte Law enforcement

inspection rights (2) (3) Contraband returned to rightful owner Out going

mail 5120-9-18 (C) Legal mail Signature `(,f) AR'S 5120-9-19 Printed Material

(A) (1) Subject to inspection (G) CENTRAL OFFICE . Asking for acceptence

of Jurisitiction for revised decision of RIB BOARD Witness at Trial.

Appellant Ronald E Harris II Undercitizenship Private employment being

underminded by Department Of Rehablitions And Corrections.Chiek InspectorsCCi-07-01-000013

Complaint Procedurs Exhansion of procedure for prision CC-1-10-08-000096

Enclosure Appellant Ronald E?;rarris II, With-in Due Precess and Equal

Protection of most laws asking to be accepted towards EQual Equal freedom of

speech clauses, from towards acess to courts as with COMMISSIONS, ,•;36 CFR712E

37 CFR 35 USCA Goverening Rules. The reality of RCIMMUNITY Schemea

Provide testing of 1-800 idea Prornotional Services* Removed, Stolen, Departmen

Of Investigation FBI SEE Recent Filing letter of legal instructionExamintion

of application and procedure Board Of Appeals Hearing Exhibit i PG-1-17 Filed

Praying to r+erenceing Petition Removed for Enabling Reasons RC & 27211.02

Declatory Force and effect Property (B) Captioned Case 3:09-cv-0956 Said to

be :.;late after multiple, request for time extenstion CIV 19 RElief from

Judg^ment Court Entry enclo®ed 11 CA 00 3287 Attached & Muliple request for

(6)

90 Days SEt3e

to courts on prior

a, an.d. or i.q8:.imidate a jisdge with-in

s only a Scheiia to enalle Accoss

See Successive Filings No. 10-3254 Jan 21

2011 And or Prior Patent Filings Usery BY The DEpartment Of Rehabilition

Ca3r

v

sEcurity time

SEE OPT£v Iv itT OF

Csshiad p

eeturrs 30 days, aaitzAe},,z; r"x.L a3xC•z'r l.i3t/eStiga'Gion

ii.y to Ti.reft isx office, Money .rem3nved during zeiaxiinum

a-ul,ing, Case Number C 2009-06982 ad Judge Alan TRavis

1] }°9:"̂°'.,'!':ree Power of a decr'.^^: , L

AP:t k:.k 201 211 At tach

A PP 4 4- a a-) ±tG C 7 SR r', er Ii

5T..:a'^',.a J.eieaaee.l3,ty for ••.^"^^i..'>"F rom

Clerks acceptance Quoting 28 U.S.C.A. 2253 DEcree & Final Judgement of orders

Substain Times lines and court Liability also see State ex rel Bacon Journal

Pu is Co. V C1tyO r on" No.

3d 605 1994 ohio 6-640 N.E. 2d 164 1994 Lexus & 2407 29 Media REp 1225 May10 1994 Submitted October 1994 Dthied Motion For con era ion ce 994

CO NC', L U ti 6i'J N

and great general iiit r

The appellant request tnat

so that the im;portant issues present

a.ntial Constii.utional

j a.£`A.oGFS.C:tivn

q

be reviewed on the merits.

submittedII Prose

e of SErvices

that a copy of this Memorandum in support of jurisdictiony c7.e:ia.ii^^:rY `. 1 1 ri:;: L'^Ywine'r.r U .S. Slttkda. 4.t,s 4Vuti^.aC ^.vi ma^'i^m^r .:^ut

Txlt.'x[?as C . A;aSt. AG t:;Z":^,Sitins'al Juzitice SOE.''t".'='.'wn 150 East Gay `'iTreet.,_ a r. ^s °m e9J..v ^^r Y .... _ _

.vt.t^,., . .,

16 t^i3 :'SUU:G LCi c.trh+. p L+s;.^EP^ s'

,sc.^'

1a-:a1 .30 t^iT'a c a^...r,a.e.<> fy? 's-̀^'z Of n=az,.•,+

••9..•.•1-t

i)a.E`C.. 'C / iTZ/J/Iwo

a;aove, t"ais cage

`i^asu's.li;.S

(7)

OF nP?EF.LS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOFOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ROSS COUNTY

Ronald E. Harris,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

V.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitationand Correction Warden Robin Knab,Chillicothe Correctional Institution,

Defendant-Appellee.

20 12 MAR 20 ki 10: 18

ROSS CDUEdT' CDF;NOts PLEnSCase No. 11CA3285RK, vF COURTS

[Y D. hi:NTIM

ENTRY

Appellant Ronald E. Harris has filed motion for reconsideration of our decision

and judgment entry denying his motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.. For the

reasons that follow, we DENY#he motion.

App.R. 26(A), provides that an "[a]pplication for reconsideration of any cause or

motion submitted on appeal shall be made in writing before the judgment or order of the

court has been approved by the court and filed by the court with the clerk for

journalization or within ten days after the announcement of the court's decision,

whic.heveris the later. ""*" (Emphasis added.)

Under this rule, appellant's motion for reconsideration had to be filed within 10

days of our February 10, 2012 entry. Appellant, without showing extraordinary

circumstances as required by App.R. 14(B) to extend this time, filed his motion on

March 2, 2012, 21 days after the date of our entry, which makes it untimely.

Moreover, although Harris asks this Court to reconsider its decision, he does not

set forth any errors in our decision or raise any issues that we did not properly consider.

Page

Ross App. No. 11 CA3296 2

MOTION DENIED.

The clerk shall serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record at their last

known addresses by ordinary mail. The clerk shall serve a copy upon appellant by

certified mail, return receipt requested. If returned unserved, the clerk shall serve

appellant by ordinary mail. SO ORDERED.

Abele, P.J. & Kline, J.: Concur.

FOR THE COURT

William H. HarshaAdministrative Judge

Page 8 A

Case 2:09-cv-00956-GCS -MRA Document 14 Filed 02/03(10 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD E. HARRIS, II,

Plaintiff,

V.

WARDEN, CHILLICOTHECORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,et aL,

Civil Action 2:09-cv-956

Judge Smith

Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs objections (Doc. 13) to

the January 7, 2010 initial screening report and recommendation (Doc. 10).

Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"),

has brought suit against the warden and several other persons. In his complaint,

he alleged that he was placed in segregated confinement after being accused of

using the mail system to annoy the Hon. Susan J. Fornof-Lippencott, a judge of the

Champaign County Municipal Court. He also alleged that the warden and other

prison staff had been interfering with his consultant business and with "the thing

theory utility patent". In the initial screening, the Magistrate Judge found that, to

the extent that the complaint stated a cognizable claim, it merely alleged that

Plaintiff was placed in disciplinary segregation, which is not actionable in and of

itself. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for

I

PG 9

DEFENDANi'SEXHIBIT

S ^

^

Case 2:09-cv-00956-GCS -MRA Document 14 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3

failure to state a claim for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The plaintiff has now filed objections to this report and recommendation. In

his objections, he elaborates somewhat on the circumstances of his discipline. He

states that the CCI Institutional Investigator has implied that Plaintiff "is in a

bunch of trouble", and has demanded to know what Plaintiff mailed to Judge

Fornof-Lippencott. Plaintiff states that he informed the Investigator at the time

that he was exercising his Fifth Amendment right to silence, but that he now

identifies the material mailed as a "photoray return". (Doc. 13 at 2.) He also

complains vaguely of other malicious treatment by prison officials, and refers to

grievances towards CCI for "removing and stealing inmates LAW SETTLEMENTS

From the honorable courts civil sandra bullock, as with Jane Reno Attorney

General 2000". (Id. at 4.) His objections are accompanied by five affidavits, all of

which appear to be lists of objects or events such as "optic sugery gun atomics 7-20-

2009" and "revalation animals research upgrades 7-22-09." (Id. at 7-12.)

It is simply impossible to determine what legally cognizable harm has been

inflicted upon Plaintiff or what relief this Court could or should grant upon such

claims. A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make

any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 328-329 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.3d 1196, 1198 (6"' Cir.

1990). An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional

or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible". Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 52, 32-33 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The complaint may not be

2

PG 9 A

Case 2:09-cv-00956-GCS -MRA Document 14 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3

dismissed as factually frivolous simply because the court finds the plaintiffs claims

unlikely or improbable. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. As stated in the complaint,

Plaintiffs allegations, as the Magistrate Judge found, insufficient to state a claim

for deprivation of civil rights. As elaborated upon in the objections, they are so

irrational that the pleading is legally frivolous.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.

10) is hereby ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ GeorFe C. SmithGEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PG 9 B

3

APPENDIX A-16

No. 10-3360

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUTI'

RONALD E. HARRIS, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

FILEDJun 18, 2010

LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

V.

WARDEN CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONALINSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER

Before: SUTTON and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge!

This matter is before the court upon consideration of the appellant's response to this court's

order directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed on the basis of a late

notice of appeal. The appellant responded by asking for an extension of time for filing the appeal;

reciting the dates he filed documents in the district court; asserting that on March 7, 2010, he placed

a notice of appeal and brief in the institution's mailbox for mailing to the clerk of the Court of ,

Appeals in Columbus, Ohio, but those documents were returned by the clerk on March 11, 2010,

with instructions that the documents should be sent to the United States District Court; indicating

that he reniailed those documents to this coun on March 14, 2010; and arguing the merits of his case.

It appears from the documents before the court that the district court entered its judgment

dismissing the case on February 4, 2010. The district court received on March 29, 2010, an

application for a certificate of appealability which it filed as a notice of appeal. The appellant

indicates in the application that he sent a copy of the document to counsel for the appellee on March

*The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District

of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

PG 10

APPENDIX A-17

No. 10-3360-2-

9, 2010, and he attached two affidavits notarized on March 8, 2010. The appellant asserts in his

response to this court's show-cause order that he placed the document filed on March 29, 2010, in

the mail to this court on March 14,2010. That notice of appeal is late. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a), 4(d)

and 26(a).

Compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) is a mandatory prerequisite that

this court may neither waive nor extend. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 203

(1988); U[timate Appliance CC v. Phe Kirby Co., 601 F.3d 414, 415 (6th Cir. 2010). Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 26(b) specifically provides that this court may not enlarge the time for filing

a notice of appeal except as authorized in Rule 4. The appellant failed to file a motion for an

extension of time in the district court by April 1, 2010, as provided by Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(a)(5).

Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

'^Y ..,,.Clerk

PG 10 A

NO

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA

IN re RONALD E HARRIS II-PETITIONER

VS.

ROBIN KNAB,WARDEN,CHILLICOTHE-RESPONDANT(s)

CORRECTIONAL INSTUTION et,al

ON PETITION FOR A WRITT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT

IN re RONALD E HARRIS II

PO BOX 5500 CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 456

(740) 784-7080

in accordance with ?S rr G r A & 1651 (A) 2141 and 2254 1.8) all

Citizens are entitled to the due process and equality from protections

of the law.

Can or should a undergbti,zenship person be denied a commisiion as

every good deed deserves a reward. With Photoray return investigation

under persecution, and or cruiety from lack of communication with the

Department Of REhabilition,

Can the % & XIV hold the protection clause for citizens of underminded

citizenship and allow them:(1) Rehabilition, (2) Litigation Acess to

court,(3)Process life liberty and justice with out color, gender,or

finicial idgency with-in statues of law. See 18 U.S.C.A. & 3006 (A)

Appointment of counsel, expert, investigato r be allowed to provide :Civil

19 Joinder of submissioin of report to congres^ Tilte Enabling Provision

(A) (C) Servicees Of Expert and Consultants showing the enabling provisions

RC 2921.45 INTERFERING and 42 U.S.C.A & 3721 Study Electronics Suvellance

AS WITH myself Ronald E Harris II CEO Particular Consulants (A) Rights

APPENDIX A p^-1 SEE ii thru iii