Opinion
1:22-CV-01133
10-10-2024
LEE JONES, Petitioner, v. WARDEN TIMOTHY MCCONAHAY, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong (Doc. 10) recommending that Lee Jones' (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied.
Petitioner is not represented by counsel. The docket reflects that a copy of the R&R, issued on July 10, 2024, was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record that same day
Petitioner's traverse lists his address as Mansfield Correctional Institution, 1150 North Main Street P.O. Box 788, Mansfield, Ohio 44901, which differs from his address of record. (Compare Doc. 8 at PageID 452 with Doc. 1 at PageID 1.) Petitioner has not filed a notice of address change. Even as a pro se litigant, Petitioner has “an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in [his] address.” Barber v. Runyon, 23 F.3d 406 (Table), 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994); see also Roundtree v. Tibbals, No. 3:16-cv-778, 2018 WL 1961157, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2018) (applying duty to notify the court of any change of address to pro se prisoner). Failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address demonstrates “a lack of prosecution of [this] action.” Roundtree, 2018 WL 1961157 at *1 (citing Theede v. United States Dep't of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 1999) and Jordan v. Jave, 951 F.3d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991)). This failure alone could warrant dismissal of the petition.
When a magistrate judge issues a R&R, the relevant statute provides:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (flush language). The timeline for submitting objections as well as the consequences for failing to do so are plainly stated in the R&R. (Doc. 10 at PageID 508-09.)
Petitioner has stated no objections to the R&R and the time for submitting objections has long since passed. See Peoples v. Hoover, 377 Fed.Appx. 461, 463 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that courts have enforced the rule requiring objection to a magistrate report regularly against pro se litigants). The failure to file written objections to the magistrate judge's R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of any issue addressed in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Notwithstanding, having reviewed the R&R in full, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and this matter DISMISSED The Court further certifies that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
The Court removes Warden Douglas Fender as the respondent in this action and replaces him with Warden Timothy McConahay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.