Bryant v. Perry et al.

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court recommends that Plaintiff be assessed the full filing fee and that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution if Plaintiff does not pay the full fee within thirty days. Objections to R&R due by 3/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 3/1/17. (ew)(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
Shaun A. Bryant,

:

Plaintiff,
v.

: Case No.

2:16-cv-1190

:

Major Perry, et al.,

: CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendant.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Shaun A. Bryant was a state prisoner housed at the
Franklin County Corrections Center when he filed his complaint on
December 21, 2016.

By order dated January 6, 2017, the Court

directed Mr. Bryant to submit, within 30 days of the date of that
order, a certified account statement from the prison cashier
which indicated both the average monthly balance in his account
for the last six months and the amount of income credited to his
account during those months.

Mr. Bryant has not submitted the

statement.
Under this circumstance, the Court recommends that Mr.
Bryant be assessed the full filing fee.

McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).

The Court further recommends

that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution if Mr. Bryant
does not pay the full fee within thirty days.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen 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