Kendrick v. Erdos

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Mark Kendrick,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:21-cv-00266

Warden Ronald T. Erdos, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 69). Proper notice has been given to Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that he would waive further appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. (Doc. 69 PageID 748); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time to file any objections has now passed. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 69) is ADOPTED in full. Consistent with that R&R, it is ORDERED that, Plaintiff’s request for an order to protect privileged mail, as set forth in his “Brief and motion request” (Doc. 63), is DENIED, and the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. _/s Michael R. Barrett________ Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court