Nanny v. Kinman

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Chris Nanny - It is therefore respectfully recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 7/19/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 07/02/12. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CHRIS NANNY,

-

v

Petitioner,

:

Case No. 3:12-cv-172

-

District Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

SHERIFF JAMIE KINMAN,
Respondent.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner Jamie Kinman brought this action in mandamus and prohibition under 28
U.S.C. § 1651 against Respondent Jamie Kinman, Sheriff of Carrollton, Kentucky (Petition,
Doc. No. 1).
Because Petitioner filed the case without either paying the filing fee or filing an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court ordered him to either pay or filing for pauper
status by June 20, 2012, and also to file an amended petition satisfying the deficiencies set out in
the Order. Petitioner has not responded. It is therefore respectfully recommended that this
action be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.
July 2, 2012.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
-1-

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this
Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e), this period is automatically
extended to seventeen days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service
listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D) and may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and
shall be accompanied by a memorandum in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See, United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

-2-