Brown v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Irvin M. Brown. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 10/6/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/18/2014. (pes1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IRVIN M. BROWN,
Petitioner,
Civil Action 2:14-cv-813
Judge Graham
Magistrate Judge King

vs.
WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has neither paid the $5.00
filing fee nor submitted a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).

On July 14, 2014, petitioner was directed to

either pay the filing fee within twenty-eight (28) days or seek leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Order, ECF 2.

Petitioner has done neither. It

therefore appears that petitioner has abandoned the prosecution of the
action.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
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
question,

as

this
well

Report
as

and

the

Recommendation,

basis

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

for

and

objection

the

part

thereto.

thereof
28

U.S.C.

in
§

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 the 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 waiver of the right to appeal the
judgment of the District Court.

See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex Prod.

Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to
the

magistrate

defendant’s]

judge’s

ability

to

recommendations
appeal

the

constituted

district

a

court’s

waiver

of

ruling”);

[the

United

States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by
failing to timely object to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation).
Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not
raised in those objections is waived.

Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994

(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objections to a magistrate judge’s report,
which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to
preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
September 18, 2014
Date

2