Munderlyn v. Miller et al

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION it is therefore recommended that this action be dismissed re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 7/19/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 7/02/13. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA MUNDERLYN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-cv-591
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

v.
SELINA MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A Complaint was filed in the name of Patricia Munderlyn against
Selina Miller and Shawna Bagley. Doc. No. 1. The $400.00 filing fee
was not paid, nor did plaintiff filed an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

A hearing to determine if the case should

be allowed to proceed was scheduled for July 2, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
Order, Doc. No. 2. Notice of the hearing was provided by certified and
regular

mail

to

the

individual

provided in the Complaint.

named

as

Doc. No. 3.

plaintiff

at

the

address

That notice was returned to

the Court with the notations, “Attempted – Not Known” and “Doesn’t
Reside Here.”

Doc. Nos. 6, 7.

No appearance was made by Patricia

Munderlyn at the hearing on July 2, 2013.1
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.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

1

Selina Miller, who is named as a defendant in the Complaint, appeared at the
hearing. Ms. Miller expressly denied that she filed the Complaint in the
name of Patricia Munderlyn.

1

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and 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); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

s/

Norah McCann King___
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
July 2, 2013

2