Gorrell v. Doe

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Gorrell v. Doe

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

Mackenzie Lee Gorrell,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:23cv428

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

John Doe,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on June 12, 2024. (Doc. 10). Proper notice was given to Plaintiff (who proceeds pro se) under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including notice that he may forfeit rights on appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947

(6th Cir. 1981); see Berkshire v. Dahl,

928 F.3d 520, 530

(6th Cir. 2019). No objections to the R&R (Doc. 10) were filed and the time to do so has passed. The R&R (Doc. 10) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. In addition, the Court certifies (pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3)) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and thus DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.1 This matter is now CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael R. Barrett JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

1 See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

114 F.3d 601, 611

(6th Cir. 1997).

Reference

Status
Unknown