Abdoulaye-Konate v. DHS/ICE

Filing 8

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 6 Report and Recommendation dismissing the writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction and prosecution. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 1/3/17. (ba)(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
Abdoulaye-Konate,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:16cv934

DHS/ICE,

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Respondent.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the
Magistrate Judge on November 29, 2016 (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 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. (Doc. 7). 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

1

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).
No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) have
been filed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) of the
Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED.

As Petitioner has failed to respond to the

Magistrate Judge Order of October 7, 2016 (Doc. 2) and this Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 6); this matter is DISMISSED not only for lack of prosecution but
for lack of jurisdiction as well.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge

2