UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ARTHUR VERNELL THOMPSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-3930 v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman MIKE DEWINE (GOVERNOR), et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 30, 2024. (Order and R&R, ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff is a prisoner in custody in Michigan, who is proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel. (Id.) After conducting an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety as time-barred, decline to order emergency relief, and warn Plaintiff that this case may be considered his third “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Id. PageID 184.) Plaintiff then moved for an extension to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 9.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s extension and ordered that he file an objection, if any, on or before May 28, 2024. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Order and R&R, and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 8, PageID 202–03.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff did not file a timely objection. Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.

(b)(1)(C). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn,

(6th Cir. 1984), aff’d,

(1985); see also United States v. Walters,

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Because Plaintiff did not file a timely objection, he waived a de novo review of the Order and R&R. The Court has reviewed the Order and R&R, agrees with the recommendations stated therein, and ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Order and R&R. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety as time-barred. The Court DECLINES to issue emergency injunctive relief and WARNS Plaintiff that this case may be considered a third “strike” under the PLRA. The Court also CERTIFIES that an appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to

(a)(3), and thus DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/11/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE