Horton v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 3/6/2017. (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
Civil Action 2:17-cv-36
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Jolson
WARDEN, MADISON CORRECTIONAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 12, 2017, Rufus Horton, a prisoner at the Madison Correctional Institution,
submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and requested leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). On January 23, 2017, this Court issued an Order
indicating that it appeared from Petitioner’s statement of his current and average institutional
account balance and/or his monthly deposits that he can afford to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc.
2). Consequently, the Court denied his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee within 30 days.
(Id.). Further, this Court warned
Petitioner that if he failed to do so, this Court may recommend dismissal of his petition. (Id.).
More than 30 days have passed, and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee. Accordingly, it
is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of
prosecution. See Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 348 (6th Cir. 2001).
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 finding or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specific proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 6, 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?