Lott v. HMP of Wood County, PLLC

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 in that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 7/11/13. (sem1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HARRY WILLIAM LOTT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0463
Judge Gregory L. Frost
Magistrate Judge Terrence P. Kemp

v.
HMP OF WOOD COUNTY, PLLC,
Defendant.

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and recommended that the Court dismiss this action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 7.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint, which attempts to assert a claim under 15 U.S.C. ' 1692b
(a provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)), fails to state a valid claim
because Defendant is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, at least according to the
allegations in the Complaint. (Id. at PAGEID# 21.)
The Report and Recommendation specifically advises Plaintiff that the failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the date of the Report (i.e., June 17,
2013) results in a “waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the
District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” (ECF No. 7 at PAGEID# 22.) The
time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has
not objected to the Report and Recommendation.

1

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections
have been filed and the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2