Amaker v. State of Ohio et al

Filing 13

ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/15/2022. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 2:22-cv-02688-MHW-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Nikkita Marie Amaker,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:22-cv-2688

V.

Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Vascura

State of Ohio, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Magistrate Judge Vascura performed in initial screen of this case pursuant
to 28 U. S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After performing the initial screen, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that recommended the
Court dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. R&R, ECF No. 4.

In response to the R&R, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Am. Compl., ECF
No. 5.
After mail from the Court was returned as undeliverable to Plaintiff at the

address she provided, Magistrate Judge Vascura issued an order directing

Plaintiff to file an updated address. 1 Order, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff updated her
address with the Court, and the Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk to mail

Plaintiff a copy of the R&R at Plaintiff's updated address. Order, ECF No. 10. At

1 It further stated, "if Plaintiff experiences a change of address at any future date during

the pendency of this matter, she must provide the Court with an updated address."
Order 2, ECF No. 7.

Case: 2:22-cv-02688-MHW-CMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 53

the same time, the Magistrate Judge extended Plaintiff's deadline for objecting to
the R&R. However, the R&R was again returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 11.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge issued a second R&R, this time
recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff's case with prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. R&R, ECF No. 12. That
R&R was also mailed to Plaintiff at her most recent address. The R&R notified

Plaintiff of her right to object to the recommendation contained therein and
warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely object would amount to a forfeiture of her

right to de novo review by the Undersigned as well as her right to appeal the
Undersigned's decision adopting the R&R. Id.
The deadline for objecting has passed, and Plaintiff failed to timely object.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R without further review and DISMISSES
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendants and terminate this case.

IT IS SOORDERED. /
MICHAEL H. WA SON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:22-CV-2688

Page 2 of 2