Tsibouris v. RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Denise Tsibouris, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:19cv161 RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc., Judge Michael R. Barrett Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on March 10, 2020 (Doc. 12). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court notes, however, that though such notice was served upon plaintiff, it was returned to the Court due to plaintiff=s failure to apprise the Court of a change of address (Doc. 13). By failing to keep the Court apprised of a current address, plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of this action. See, e.g., Theede v. United States Department of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 1999). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge=s R&R due to delay resulting from party=s failure to bring to the Court=s attention a change in address constitutes failure to object in a timely manner. Because the R&R was mailed to the last known address, it was properly served, and party waived right to appellate review. See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently 1 pursue the prosecution of his cause of action; Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994). A pro se litigant has a duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in his address. No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R (Doc. 12) have been filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 12) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the Complaint (Doc. 3) is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to obey a Court order. Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would not be taken in good faith and would be denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court 2