Kendrick v. Erdos et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Consistent with the 69 R&R, it is ORDERED that, Plaintiff's request for an order to protect privileged mail, as set forth in his 63 "Brief and motion request", is DENIED, and the Court CE RTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 5/15/2023. (kkz)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:21-cv-00266-MRB-PBS Doc #: 71 Filed: 05/15/23 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 750

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Mark Kendrick,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00266

Warden Ronald T. Erdos, et al.,

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 69).
Proper notice has been given to Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including
notice that he would waive further appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a
timely manner. (Doc. 69 PageID 748); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947
(6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time to file any
objections has now passed. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2).
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 69) is
ADOPTED in full. Consistent with that R&R, it is ORDERED that, Plaintiff’s request for
an order to protect privileged mail, as set forth in his “Brief and motion request” (Doc. 63),
is DENIED, and the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an
appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave
to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s Michael R. Barrett________
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court