UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NADIFO OSMAN JAMA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-4193 v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura MARC DILLARD, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on July 2, 2025. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff Nadifo Osman Jama filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus on November 25, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants Marc Dillard and Antony Blinken moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel then moved to withdraw because of Plaintiff’s failure to communicate. (ECF No. 10.) The Court granted the motion to withdraw and ordered Plaintiff to file notice regarding whether she intended to retain new counsel or proceed pro se. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff did not respond. On June 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days regarding why the Court should not dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of her case. (Id.) She did not respond. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 13.) 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). 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). Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 13, PageID 101–02.) Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Marc Dillard and Antony Blinken. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 7.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, to close this case on the Court’s docket, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 5768 Corral Creek Drive, Westerville, OH 43081. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8/5/2025 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE