ReVoal v. Brownback et al
Filing
8
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 5 Report and Recommendations. Dismissing case without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 10/16/14.Mailed to pro se party William R. ReVoal, II by regular mail. (mm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WILLIAM R. ReVOAL, II,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAM BROWNBACK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)
Case No. 14-4076
ORDER
On September 29, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Karen Humphreys issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 5), wherein she recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Magistrate Judge Humphreys advised plaintiff, who filed this
action pro se, of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days, or by
October 14, 2014, and further advised that failure to make a timely objection to the Report and
Recommendation waives any right to appellate review of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of
law, or recommended disposition.
To date, plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, nor has he
sought any extension of time to file an objection. The court notes that it appears the address which this
pro se plaintiff provided to the court may no longer be current, as the certified and regular mailings to
plaintiff were returned to the court as “not deliverable as addressed” and “unable to forward.” (Docs. 6
and 7.)
The Report and Recommendation was sent to plaintiff’s last known address: 2800 North
Hillside, Wichita, Kansas 67219, which is the address plaintiff supplied to the clerk’s office when he
filed this action and the address he stated on his Affidavit of Financial Status (Doc. 3). Local Rules
-1-
require pro se parties to “notify the clerk in writing of any change of address or telephone number.” D.
Kan. Rule 5.1(c)(3). “Any notice mailed to the last address of record of an attorney or pro se party is
sufficient notice.” (Id.) Indeed, “it would be unreasonable to require courts to wade through a party’s
file in order to determine the most recent or most likely address at which to contact the party.” Theede
v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding pro se plaintiff’s objections to
magistrate’s report and recommendation untimely and not appealable where report was mailed to
plaintiff’s last known address, even though that was not actually his current address).
The court determines that service of the Report and Recommendation was accomplished by
“mailing it to [plaintiff’s] last known address—in which event service [was] complete upon mailing.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). With no objection to the Report and Recommendation being filed within
the time prescribed, and no extension of time to file an objection being sought by plaintiff, the court
accepts, adopts and affirms the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, after reviewing the file de novo, the Report and
Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Karen Humphreys on September 29, 2014
is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The court hereby dismisses this action without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2014, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Carlos Murguia
CARLOS MURGUIA
United States District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?