Nathaniel Dante Rice v. Sheriff Richard K. Jones, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00695
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, ‘ Case No. 1:22-cv-695 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland

SHERIFF RICHARD K. JONES, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 59)

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 59), to whom this case is referred. No objections have been filed and the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Although the Report and Recommendation was mailed to the address that Plaintiff most recently provided to the Court, it was returned as undeliverable. (Mail Returned, Doc. 61.) A litigant has “an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in [his] address.” Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *] (6th Cir. May 2, 1994); see also Bond v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:24-CV-258, 2025 WL 1680251, at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 14, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:24-CV- 258, 2025 WL 1679529 (W.D. Ky. June 13, 2025). Upon review, the Court agrees with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Object (Doc. 57), which the Court construes as a motion for relief

from judgment, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ¢ ey By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND