Cassell et al v. Licking County Memorial Hospital et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 3/10/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/24/2017. (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
CHARLES MICHAEL
CASSELL, III, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-051
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson

LICKING COUNTY
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 23, 2017, this Court issued an Order informing Plaintiffs that, despite filing a
Complaint on January 17, 2007, they had neither paid the full filing fee nor submitted a request
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Thus, the Court ordered
Plaintiffs to pay the $400.00 filing fee or file a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) within thirty (30) days. The Court also warned Plaintiffs
that their “[f]ailure to do so will result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.” (Doc.
4).
More than thirty days have passed since the Court’s Order and Plaintiffs have not
complied or sought an extension of time in order to do so. The Court may dismiss an action for
failure to prosecute under its inherent power to control its docket, see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962), or under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based
upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to all Plaintiffs.

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.
§ 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: February 24, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE