Powell v. Warden, Franklin County Correction Center

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 6/2/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 5/19/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ERIC L. POWELL Petitioner, Case No. 2:17-CV-00276-ALM JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY Magistrate Judge Jolson v. WARDEN, FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER, Respondent. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On April 6, 2017, Eric L. Powell, a prisoner at the Franklin County Correctional Center, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). However, on April 12, 2017, this Court issued an Order noting that Petitioner had submitted neither the full filing fee nor a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Consequently, the Court ordered Petitioner either to pay the $5.00 filing fee or to file a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) within thirty (30) days of that Order. (Doc. 2). The Court additionally made clear that “[f]ailure to do so [would] result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.” (Id.). More than 30 days have passed, and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 1 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: May 19, 2017 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?