Johnson v. Ahmed et al

Filing 32

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 30 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 6/23/2015. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES JOHNSON, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FAISAL AHMED, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:13-cv-921
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 30)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on May 19, 2015, submitted a
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 30). No objections were filed. 1
As required by 29 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
1

The Court notes that although proper notice was served upon Plaintiff, the copy of the Report and
Recommendation which the Clerk mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to
apprise the Court of his change of address. (Doc. 31). By failing to keep the Court apprised of his current
address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his action. See, e.g., Theede v. United States
Dep’t 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 the party waived his right to appellate review). See
also Barber v. Runyon, 23 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 1994).

determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in
its entirety. Accordingly:
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (Doc. 27) is
GRANTED;
2. This civil action is DISMISSED for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b);
3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of this Order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to
appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free, however, to apply to proceed
in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals; and
4. This civil action is TERMINATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

6/23/2015

_/s/Timothy S. Black_____________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

2