Summary
finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider a dispute about student loans because the plaintiff "failed to demonstrate that Defendant has taken any 'final agency action'"
Summary of this case from Green v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.Opinion
Civil Action 2:10-cv-00782.
June 29, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the June 3, 2011 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 13.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant U.S. Department of Education (ECF No. 6) and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Directed Verdict (ECF No. 9).
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." (Report Recommendation 2, ECF No. 13.) 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 at the address he provided in the Complaint. Although it appears Plaintiff may no longer reside at this address, he has not provided the Court with an updated address. ( See ECF No. 14.) 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, to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss of Defendant U.S. Department of Education (ECF No. 6) and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this action from the Court's pending case list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.