Hart v. Biden

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Hart v. Biden

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL S. HART, : Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-4290 v. Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson Defendant.

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On January 19, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Report and Recommendation specifically advised Plaintiff on his right to object within fourteen days and on the rights he would waive by failing to do so. (Jd. at 4). No objection has been filed, and the deadline lapsed on February 2, 2022. This is hardly surprising; the basis of the Report and Recommendation is Plaintiffs failure to apprise the Court of his changed address, as is his duty as a pro se litigant. See Barber v. Runyon,

1994 WL 163765, at *1

(6th Cir. 1994). The Court’s three mailings to Plaintiff's last known address all have been returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9). Given that Plaintiff has not apprised the Court of his current address, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case. Dismissal, therefore, is appropriate. See Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem., LLC,

2010 WL 717275

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk is instructed to serve this Order on Plaintiff's last known address. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ALGENON L. MARBLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: February 8, 2022

Reference

Status
Unknown