Amison v. Canton Ohio Police Department et al

Filing 17

VACATED per order 2/26/15: Order of Dismissal: The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Burke's Report and Recommendation and adopts the same. (Doc. No. 15 .) Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. This case is closed. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order of Dismissal to plaintiff at his address of record. Judge Sara Lioi on 2/26/2015. (P,J) Modified text on 2/26/2015 (P,J).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN AMISON,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.
OFFICER LEGG,

DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:14cv987

JUDGE SARA LIOI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court upon the recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Burke that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute
this action. (Doc. No. 15 (Report and Recommendation [“R&R”]).) Plaintiff’s complaint
against the Canton, Ohio Police Department, and Officers Legg and Shackle, alleges the use of
excessive force by Officer Legg. (Doc. No. 1.)
After dismissing the Canton Police Department and Officer Shackle from the
case, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Burke for general pre-trial supervision.
(Doc. Nos. 6 and 7.) As detailed in the R&R, plaintiff has failed update his address with the
Clerk as ordered by Magistrate Judge Burke and to participate in a scheduled telephonic status
conference. (R&R at 54-55.1) Magistrate Judge Burke previously warned plaintiff that failure
to file a change of address, and to participate in the scheduled telephonic conference, may
result in the dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 12.)

1

References to page numbers are to the page identification numbers generated by the Court’s electronic docketing
system.

The R&R was mailed by the Court to plaintiff at his address of record at the
Lorain Correctional Institute on January 20, 2015. The mailing was returned to the Court with
a hand-written note “released 10/1/2014” and a typed notation “return to sender, refused,
unable to forward.” (Doc. No. 16.)
Under the relevant statute:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and
file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as
provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has attempted to serve the plaintiff with a copy of the R&R, but is
unable to do so because, as of the date of this Order of Dismissal, plaintiff has not provided the
Court with a current mailing address. No objections have been filed to the R&R. The failure to
file written objections to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge constitutes a
waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report.
Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff=d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Burke’s Report and Recommendation
and adopts the same. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure
to prosecute. This case is closed. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order of
Dismissal to plaintiff at his address of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE