Brown v. Crawford

Full title: SHERYL BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DALE CRAWFORD, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 2, 2013

Case No. 2:13-cv-607 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 2, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 2:13-cv-607

07-02-2013

SHERYL BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DALE CRAWFORD, et al., Defendants.

Norah McCann King

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

A Complaint was filed in the name of Sheryl Brown against Selina Miller and Dale Crawford, a former state court judge. Doc. No. 1. The $400.00 filing fee was not paid, nor was an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. A hearing to determine if the case should be allowed to proceed was scheduled for July 2, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. Order, Doc. No. 2. Notice of the hearing was provided to the plaintiff named in the Complaint at the address provided in the Complaint.

Sheryl Brown appeared at the hearing. She confirmed that the address reflected in the Complaint is her address. She does not know the defendant state court judge, but was acquainted with Selina Miller in the remote past. She expressly denied that she either filed the Complaint or authorized the filing of the Complaint. The signature on the Complaint is not her signature. She does not want to pursue any claims in this action.

Under these circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

___________

Norah McCann King

United States Magistrate Judge