Edmonds v. Licking County et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution. Objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/5/2017. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Brandon G Edmonds @ 155 East Main, Newark OH 43055])
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
BRANDON G. EDMONDS,
Civil Action 2:16-cv-921
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Jolson
LICKING COUNTY, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 27, 2016, this Court issued an Order noting that Plaintiff had neither paid
the full filing fee nor submitted a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2 at 1).
Consequently, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee or file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days of the Order. (Id.). The Court also warned
Plaintiff that “his failure to do so [would] result in the dismissal of the action for want of
prosecution.” (Id.). More than three months have passed since the Court’s Order and Plaintiff
has neither paid the full filing fee nor submitted a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
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 5, 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?