Hughes et al v. City of Dublin et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by James Bott, James Hughes be denied and that Plaintiffs be given a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 21 days, to submit the necessary filing fee. It i s further recommended that if they do not, the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 6/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 6/15/2017. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
James Hughes, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

:
Case No. 2:16-cv-153

:

v.

:

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Jeanette Arlene Davis, et al., :
Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Kemp

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
As this Court’s order of February 29, 2016 reflects, the
plaintiffs in this case moved to proceed in forma pauperis but
that motion was deficient in various respects.

Plaintiffs were

provided with details as to the information needed to complete
their applications.

They have never responded to the order.

Because the in forma pauperis application remains deficient,
the Court recommends that it be denied and that Plaintiffs be
given a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 21 days, to
submit the necessary filing fee.

It is further recommended that

if they do not, the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation,
that party may, within fourteen (14) 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-