Opinion
Case Number: 1:14cv405
09-18-2014
Lester Douglas, Plaintiff(s), v. Richard & Associates, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz filed on August 22, 2014 (Doc. 12), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired September 8, 2014, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), plaintiff may file, within 30 days after service of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, a motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6 Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274 (6 Cir. 1997). Plaintiff's motion must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the District Court and the District Court's statement of the reasons for denying pauper status on appeal Id.: see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
Plaintiff is notified that if he does not file a motion within 30 days of receiving notice of the District Court's decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), or fails to pay the required filing fee of $505.00 within this same time period, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. Once dismissed for want of prosecution, the appeal will not be reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for pauper status is subsequently tendered, unless plaintiff can demonstrate that he did not receive notice of the District Court's decision within the time period prescribed for by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Susan J. Dlott
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court