UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION ASHLAND

BILLY JOE LUCAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 0:22-CV-10-REW-CJS v. ) ) ORDER CHARLES FARLEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

*** *** *** *** In January 2022 Plaintiff Billy Joe Lucas filed this

action against Greenup County Jail and multiple entity employees. See DE 1 (Complaint). The Court screened the Complaint and initially dismissed without prejudice all claims except those against deputies Ryno, Nick, and Farley—each in their individual capacities. See DE 7 (Order). The Court then referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith for pretrial oversight. See DE 13 (Case Management and Referral Order). In late April and early May of 2022—in pursuit of scheduling and case management—the Court attempted to mail Lucas the DE 13 Case Management and Referral Order and a DE 15 Scheduling Order. However, they were both returned as undeliverable. See DE 16 (noting the Case Management and Referral Order was undeliverable); DE 17 (noting the Scheduling Order was undeliverable). On June 8, 2022, upon learning that Lucas was listed in the “Home Incarceration Program,” the Court ordered Lucas to file a change of address within 21 days or else face possible dismissal. See DE 18 (Order). That Order, like the previous two, was also returned as undeliverable. See DE 19 (noting the Order to Change Address was undeliverable). Without receiving any new filings from Lucas—updated address or otherwise—Judge Smith now recommends that the Court dismiss Lucas’s DE 1 Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s DE 18 Order. See DE 20 (Recommended Disposition). No party objects. The matter is ripe for review. The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate[ judge]’s factual or legal conclusions,

under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl,

(6th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a [party] does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate[ judge]’s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal.’”) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh,

(6th Cir. 1996) (quote brackets simplified)); United States v. Olano,

, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” filed);

(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the recommendation “to which objection is made”).

The Court thus, with no objection from any party, with three months of silence from Lucas, with utter inattention by Plaintiff to the responsibilities in and pendency of this case, and on full review of the record, ORDERS as follows: 1. The Court ADOPTS the DE 20 Recommended Disposition; 2. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the DE 1 Complaint; 3. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE this matter from the docket; and 4. The Court SHALL enter an appropriate Judgment. This the 9" day of September, 2022. See Signed By: Wea; By Robert E. Wier “V¥y/ “= United States District Judge