Costick v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

• Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00198
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00198-GFVT-EBA

JASON COSTICK, et al., PLAINTIFFS,

V. ORDER AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al., DEFENDANTS.

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s counsel Gregory L. Crutcher’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Joey Bardelas. [R. 28]. The motion was filed on November 14, 2024, and no action has occurred since. By prior order, the Court directed Movant Crutcher to file a status report providing pertinent information regarding his attempts to contact Mr. Bardelas and Mr. Bardelas’ last known contact information. [R. 30]. Crutcher filed a timely status report providing the Court with the requested information. [R. 31]. The Court then issued an order directing this matter to come before the undersigned for a show cause hearing. [R. 32]. Mr. Bardleas was directed to personally appear at the hearing and was advised that his failure to appear may result in the undersigned recommending that his case be dismissed. [Id.]. After being rescheduled on two occasions, [R. 34; R. 36], the show cause hearing was held on March 24, 2025. Bardelas failed to appear. Moreover, at the hearing, Movant Crutcher indicated that while he had been in contact with Mr. Bardelas, he believed that Bardelas had abandoned his claims. Therefore, having considered the matter, IT IS ORDERED that Movant Crutcher’s motion to withdraw, [R. 28], is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Joey Bardelas’ claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Bardelas a copy of this report and recommendation via certified mail at 1965 Vicksburg Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503, return receipt requested. eR GR HOR ik The parties are directed to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for a review of appeal rights governing this Recommended Disposition. Particularized objections to this Recommended Disposition must be filed within fourteen days from the date of service thereof or further appeal is waived. United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2001); Thomas v. Ann, 728 F.2d 813, 815 (6th Cir. 1984). General objections or objections that require a judge’s interpretation are insufficient to preserve the right to appeal. Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). A party may file a response to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1). Signed March 24, 2025.

Om Signed By: uy Edward B. Atkins £6 “x +~United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2