From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hollywood v. Franklin County Workhouse

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 26, 2009
Civil Action 2:08-CV-1175 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 26, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:08-CV-1175.

June 26, 2009


ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Muhammadon S. Hollywood submitted an illegible document apparently intended to serve as a complaint. Doc. No. 1. He was directed to file a legible complaint. Order, Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff was also directed to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id.

Other names were included by plaintiff, but no other person signed the document.

Plaintiff thereafter filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 3. That motion is GRANTED. All judicial officers shall render services in this case as if the costs had been prepaid.

However, the Complaint attached to the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is not on the complaint form provided by the Court, is still illegible. The Court is utterly unable to determine either the basis of jurisdiction or any claims asserted.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within ten (10) 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); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.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 Federation of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).


Summaries of

Hollywood v. Franklin County Workhouse

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 26, 2009
Civil Action 2:08-CV-1175 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 26, 2009)
Case details for

Hollywood v. Franklin County Workhouse

Case Details

Full title:MUHAMMADON S. HOLLYWOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY WORKHOUSE…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jun 26, 2009

Citations

Civil Action 2:08-CV-1175 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 26, 2009)