Frazier v. U.S. Department of Education

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 , The court GRANTS defendant's Motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this action from the court's pending case list. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 6/29/11. (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE D. FRAZIER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:10-cv-00782
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the June 3, 2011 Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 13.) The Magistrate Judge recommended
that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant U.S. Department of Education (ECF
No. 6) and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Directed Verdict (ECF No. 9).
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically advises parties that
the failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report
results in a “waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court.” (Report & Recommendation 2, ECF No. 13.) The
time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. No party has
objected to the Report and Recommendation.
The record reflects that the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at the
address he provided in the Complaint. Although it appears Plaintiff may no longer reside at this
address, he has not provided the Court with an updated address. (See ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff has
an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in address. See Barber v. Runyon, No.

93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (“If [pro se Plaintiff's] address changed,
she had an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in her
address.”); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[W]hile pro se litigants
may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues . . . there is no
cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can
comprehend.”); Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem., LLC, No. 1:07cv289, 2010 WL 717275, at *1
(S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010) (“By failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address, Plaintiff
demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his action.”).
The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers, to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired,
the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss of Defendant U.S. Department of Education
(ECF No. 6) and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
remove this action from the Court’s pending case list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
Date: June 29, 2011

2