Kubico v. Hoffman et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/3/2017. (kk)(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
PHILLIP J. KUBICO,
Civil Action 2:16-cv-910
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Jolson
WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 16, 2016, Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 2). Plaintiff’s motion for leave did not include a certified copy of his
trust fund account statement, which is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). On November 17,
2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit to the Court within 30 days a certified copy of his
trust fund account statement from the prison cashier in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
(Doc. 4). The Court informed Plaintiff that his failure to follow the Court’s direction would
require the Court to “presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, . . . assess the inmate the full
amount of fees[,] . . . [and] then order the case dismissed for want of prosecution.” (Id. (quoting
In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1132 (6th Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiff has failed to submit a certified copy of his trust fund account statement in
accordance with the Court’s November 17, 2016 Order. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED
that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied (Doc. 2) and that this
action 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.
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 3, 2017
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?