Arbino v. US Marshall Service et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; no further documents can be filed in this closed case per order by the Court. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 10/12/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (ba1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Tom Arbino,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:12cv318

U.S. Marshal Service, et al.,

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the
Magistrate Judge on September 11, 2012 (Doc. 47).
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 Petitioner, it was returned to
the Court due to Petitioner=s failure to apprise the Court of his change of address. By failing to
keep the Court apprised of his current address, the Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of
his 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). Therefore, no objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 47) have been filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED consistent with the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47)
of the Magistrate Judge that it is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 26) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 27-34, 36-45) are all
DENIED; and Plaintiff’s motions to halt collection and to change venue (Docs. 35 and 46) are
DENIED. It is also ORDERED, consistent with the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) by
the Magistrate Judge, that any further motions or pleadings from either party in this particular civil
case are prohibited. Any further pleadings or motions tendered by the Plaintiff for filing in this
within action are to be returned to the plaintiff by the Clerk of Court with the following notice: “No
further documents can be filed in this closed case, per order of the district court.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge

2