Lewis v. Ohio et al, No. 2:2017mc00045 - Document 5 (S.D. Ohio 2017)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 3 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/14/17. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lewis v. Ohio et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DEMARICK C. LEWIS, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:17-mc-45 OHIO, et al., Judge Michael H. Watson Defendants. Magistrate Judge Jolson OPINION AND ORDER Demarick 0. Lewis ("Plaintiff) filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, EOF No. 1, along with an affidavit titled "Declaration of Nationality," on July 26, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed a complaint or other pleading with the affidavit. Magistrate Judge Jolson conducted an initial screen of this case on July 31, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2) and issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court dismiss the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. R&R, EOF No. 3. Magistrate Judge Jolson found that "Plaintiff fails to allege any coherent facts and it is unclear what relief, if any, is sought." The R&R also detailed the procedures Plaintiff must follow to object to the R&R, which included an explanation of the rule that objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the R&R. Piaintifffiled an untimely objection to the R&R on August 24, 2017. EOF No. 4. "A failure to file timely objections not only waives the right to de novo review of a Magistrate Judge's Dockets.Justia.com Report and Recommendation, but dispenses with the need for the district court to conduct any review." Jones v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst, No. 2:11-cv-0871, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169658, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2013) (citations omitted). Because Plaintiffs objection was untimely filed, the Court need not undertake a review of the R&R. Therefore, Plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:17-mc-45 Page 2 of 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
