Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cv-2343 Case No. 2:14-cv-2345
06-04-2015
ANNA M. VINES CARTER, Plaintiff, v. GRANT HOSPITAL et al., Defendants. ANNA M. VINES CARTER, Plaintiff, v. OSU HARDING HOSPITAL et al., Defendants.
CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers
ORDER
On December 3, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that these cases be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Case No. 2:14-cv-2343, ECF No. 3 & Case No. 2:14-cv-2345, ECF No. 2.) The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically advises parties that the failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a "waiver of the right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court." The time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation.
The record reflects that the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff but that it was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) ("If [pro se Plaintiff's] address changed, she had an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in her address."); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) ("[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues . . . there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend."); Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem., LLC, No. 1:07cv289, 2010 WL 717275, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010) ("By failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his action.").
The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers. No objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired. Although Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in her two cases, Plaintiff did not cure the deficiencies identified in the Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Case No. 2:14-cv-2343, ECF No. 3 & Case No. 2:14-cv-2345, ECF No. 2) and DISMISSES these two cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 6-4-2015
DATE
/s/ _________
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE