Mitchell v. DeJoy

S.D. Ohio

Mitchell v. DeJoy

DecidedJune 26, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00195

StatusUnknown

This text of Mitchell v. DeJoy (Mitchell v. DeJoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. DeJoy, (S.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI MARY D. MITCHELL, : Case No. 1:23-cv-195 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland v . POSTMASTER GENERAL LOUIS DEJOY, Defendant.

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 4), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 5) to the Report and Recommendation; however, the objections were not timely filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Additionally, Plaintiff did not file any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. General objections are considered the equivalent of failing to object entirely. McCready v. Kamminga, 113 F. Appx. 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004). Thus, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 5) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED a thirty (30) day extension of time from this Order to pay the required filing fee of $402.00. Plaintiff is hereby notified that her

complaint will not be deemed “filed” until the appropriate filing fee is paid, see Truitt v. Cnty. of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1998), and that, if she fails to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days, this matter will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI MARY D. MITCHELL, : Case No. 1:23-cv-195 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland v . POSTMASTER GENERAL LOUIS DEJOY, Defendant.

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 4), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 5) to the Report and Recommendation; however, the objections were not timely filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Additionally, Plaintiff did not file any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. General objections are considered the equivalent of failing to object entirely. McCready v. Kamminga, 113 F. Appx. 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004). Thus, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 5) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED a thirty (30) day extension of time from this Order to pay the required filing fee of $402.00. Plaintiff is hereby notified that her

complaint will not be deemed “filed” until the appropriate filing fee is paid, see Truitt v. Cnty. of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1998), and that, if she fails to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days, this matter will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mitchell v. DeJoy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-dejoy-ohsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack