Castillo v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 26

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25 ). Plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21 ) is denied as moot. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 5/31/2016. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSE ANGEL CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:15cv556

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 21]

Pro se Plaintiff Jose Angel Castillo filed a complaint in state court on February 9, 2015.
ECF No. 1-1. Defendants removed the case to federal court on March 20, 2015. ECF No. 1.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert for preparation of a report and
recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). On April 28, 2016, the magistrate judge
submitted a report and recommendation (ECF No. 25) recommending that the Court dismiss the
instant case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to pursue his case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be
filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s report were,
therefore, due on May 16, 2016.1 Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation.2 Any further review by the Court would be a duplicative and
1

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), three days must be added to the fourteen-day time period
because Plaintiff was served the Magistrate Judge’s Report by mail. See Thompson v. Chandler,
36 F. App’x. 783, 784 (6th Cir. 2002).
2

As the magistrate judge noted in the report and recommendation, “A copy of the Order
to Show Cause was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Stewart Detention Center

(4:15cv556)
inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984),
aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 21) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 31, 2016
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

with his inmate identification number. That mail was returned and marked “Need Detainee Name
& Number” although Plaintiff’s name and inmate number were provided on the address to the
facility. ECF Dkt. #24. A subsequent search of the inmate locator on the Bureau of Prisons’
website indicates that Plaintiff was released on October 30, 2015. As indicated in the Order to
Show Cause, Plaintiff provided his last known address as the Stewart Detention Center and
mail sent to that facility previously was returned because he was not at that facility. ECF Dkt.
#20. Plaintiff never provided this Court with an updated address.” ECF No. 25 at PageID #: 149.
It is the party, not the court, who bears the burden of apprising the court of any changes to his
mailing address. See Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Casimir v.
Sunrise Fin., Inc., 299 F. App’x. 591, 593 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s denial of
Rule 60(b) motion where movants claimed due to house fire they did not receive mail informing
them of court’s entry of summary judgment); Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir.
2005) (“[A] litigant who invokes the processes of the federal courts is responsible for
maintaining communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit.”); Watsy v.
Richards, 1987 WL 37151, at *1 (6th Cir. April 20, 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to
prosecute when appellant failed to provide district court with “current address necessary to
enable communication with him”)).
2