Thomas v. Officer Hicks et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 12 Report and Recommendation dismissing this matter for want of prosecution. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 12/30/14. (ba1)(This document has been sent by the Clerks Office 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 Thomas,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14cv328

Officer Hicks, 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 November 24, 2014 (Doc. 12).
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, Petitioner 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

1

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). No objections to the
Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation have been filed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) of
the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. This matter is DISMISSED for want of
prosecution.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any request for certificate of appealability
would not be taken in good faith and would be denied consistent with the
recommendation by the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge

2