From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Byrd v. Underwood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Nov 4, 2013
Case No. 1:13-cv-579 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cv-579

11-04-2013

Carolyn Byrd, Plaintiff v. Arica L. Underwood, Defendant


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed September 6, 2013 (Doc. 5).

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, we find the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation correct.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

This Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6 Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6 Cir. 1997).

_________________

Sandra S. Beckwith, Senior Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Byrd v. Underwood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Nov 4, 2013
Case No. 1:13-cv-579 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Byrd v. Underwood

Case Details

Full title:Carolyn Byrd, Plaintiff v. Arica L. Underwood, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 4, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:13-cv-579 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2013)