Dawan v. Olthaus et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. The Court certifies that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. (eh1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Yusef Mujahid Dawan,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-374

C. Olthaus, et al,

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
filed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on July 21, 2011 (Doc. 6). 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 in a
timely manner.1 See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
No objections to the Report has been filed.
Although proper notice was served upon Plaintiff, it was returned to the Court
marked “Refused.” (Doc. 7.) This demonstrates a lack of prosecution of this action.
This is noteworthy given that the report recommends that this case be dismissed for
lack of prosecution. (Doc. 6, 1.)
Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court
finds the Report to be correct. It is ORDERED that the Report is hereby ADOPTED.
As the Report recommends (Doc. 6, 1-2), Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE. Additionally, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that
any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v.

1

Notice was attached to the Report regarding objections. (Doc. 6, 3.)

Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge

2