Summary
finding first factor of Rule 41(b) analysis weighed in favor of dismissal where court warned pro se plaintiff "that his case would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to file a response to [d]efendants' motion to dismiss or a response to the [c]ourt's [o]rder to [s]how [c]ause"
Summary of this case from Koerth v. Cnty. of MontgomeryOpinion
Civil Action No. 14-10609
11-24-2014
REGINALD DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. BENNY NAPOLEON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation filed August 15, 2014 (Doc. No. 24). No Objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by Plaintiff Reginald Daniels or any of the Defendants.
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 636. This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The Court "may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate." Id. In order to preserve the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, a party must file objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As Plaintiff filed the complaint pro se, the Court will interpret his pleadings liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 499 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
After review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the finds that the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions of law are correct. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's Order to Show Cause. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and certified that any appeal from this decision would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997)(overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)).
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge
DATED: November 24, 2014
Proof of Service
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action was served on the attorneys and parties of record herein by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November 24, 2014.
s/Kim Grimes
Acting in the Absence of
LaShawn Saulsberry, Case Manager