Page-Cunningham v. Miller et al

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this action be dismissed. Objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 7/5/2013. (kk2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Rosita Page-Cunningham,

:

Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

Case No. 2:13-cv-559

:

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Selina Miller, et al.,
Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A complaint was filed in the name of Rosita Page-Cunningham
against Selina Miller, Keith Troy, John Flowers, Trevitt
Mitchell, and Eugene Reese.

(Doc. #1).

The $400.00 filing fee

was not paid, nor did plaintiff file an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

A hearing to determine whether the

case should be allowed to proceed was scheduled for July 2, 2013,
at 1:30 p.m.

(Doc. #3).

Notice of the hearing was provided by

regular mail to the individual named as plaintiff at the address
provided in the complaint.

That notice was returned to the Court

as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded. (Docs. #4 and #5).
No appearance was made by Rosita Page-Cuningham at the hearing on
July 2, 2013.
The filing fee has not been paid, there has been no request
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and it does not appear
that the claims asserted in this action will be pursued.
Consequently, the Court will recommend that this action be
dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that this
action be dismissed.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).

A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.

Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result 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.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-