From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Willimas v. Spencer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
May 18, 2015
Case No. 1:15cv113 (S.D. Ohio May. 18, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:15cv113

05-18-2015

Lisa Dawn Hardy Willimas, Plaintiff, v. Cheryl Spencer, Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on March 25, 2015 (Doc. 4).

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 Plaintiff, it was returned to the Court due to Plaintiff's failure to apprise the Court of her change of address. By failing to keep the Court apprised of her current address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of her 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. 4) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), any request for certificate of appealability or request to appeal in forma pauperis would not be taken in good faith and would be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael R. Barrett

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Willimas v. Spencer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
May 18, 2015
Case No. 1:15cv113 (S.D. Ohio May. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Willimas v. Spencer

Case Details

Full title:Lisa Dawn Hardy Willimas, Plaintiff, v. Cheryl Spencer, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 18, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:15cv113 (S.D. Ohio May. 18, 2015)