From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Hicks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Dec 30, 2014
Case No. 1:14cv328 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 1:14cv328

12-30-2014

James Thomas, Plaintiff, v. Officer Hicks, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on November 24, 2014 (Doc. 12).

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. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court notes, however, that though such notice was served upon Petitioner, it was returned to the Court due to Petitioner's failure to apprise the Court of his change of address. By failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address, Petitioner demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his action. See, e.g., Theede v. United States Department of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 1999)(Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation due to delay resulting from party's failure to bring to the Court's attention a change in address constitutes failure to object in a timely manner. Because the Recommendation was mailed to the last known address, it was properly served, and party waived right to appellate review). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991)(A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution of his cause of action); Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (A pro se litigant has a duty to supply the Court with notice of any and all changes in his address). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. This matter is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any request for certificate of appealability would not be taken in good faith and would be denied consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Michael R. Barrett

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Thomas v. Hicks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Dec 30, 2014
Case No. 1:14cv328 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2014)
Case details for

Thomas v. Hicks

Case Details

Full title:James Thomas, Plaintiff, v. Officer Hicks, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2014

Citations

Case No. 1:14cv328 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2014)