Fitzcharles v. Federal Government (Homeland Security)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that 1 Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 9/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 9/1/2017. (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
RONALD WILLIAM FITZCHARLES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-638
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (HOMELAND
SECURITY),
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Ronald William Fitzcharles has neither paid the full filing fee nor submitted a
request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Consequently, on
July 25, 2017, this Court ordered Plaintiff 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. (Doc.
2). The Court advised Plaintiff that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. (Id.).
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff 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, e.g., 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: September 1, 2017

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