Opinion
Case No. 1:08-cv-744.
February 2, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on December 23, 2009 (doc 40).
Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendations in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was returned to the Court as Undeliverable/Return to Sender/Refused/Unable to Forward. (See Doc 41). A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue this prosecution of his action, see Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F2d. 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991), as well as a duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in his address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (citing Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F2d. 811, 815 (9th Cir. 1985)). Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be correct.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc 25) is DENIED.