REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Before this Court is Plaintiff, Kyomi Postley's, Motion To Dismiss Minor Plaintiffs. ECF No. 59. Separate Defendants Housing Authority of the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas ("HSHA") and Richard Herrington, in his official and individual capacities ("Herrington"), filed a response to this motion. ECF No. 60.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this motion to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. This Court, having reviewed the parties arguments and briefing, recommends Plaintiff, Kyomi Postley's, Motion To Dismiss Minor Plaintiffs (ECF No. 59) be GRANTED.

1. Background

On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint alleging claims on behalf of herself and her minor children T.P Jr., T.P., and K.P. against Defendants alleging her civil rights were violated through an eviction from a public housing unit. ECF No. 1.

On November 11, 2019, Plaintiff, Kyomi Postley filed a Motion to Dismiss Minor Plaintiffs requesting the dismissal of her minor children from the pending lawsuit. ECF. No. 59. Separate Defendants HSHA and Herrington, responded to this motion on November 29, 2018 and do not oppose the granting of the motion. ECF No. 60.

2. Discussion

As set forth above, Plaintiff proceeds pro se and on behalf of her minor children. However, a non-attorney parent may not appear pro se on behalf of a minor but, instead, must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child. Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curium). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims on behalf of her minor children, T.P Jr., T.P., and K.P., should be dismissed.

3. Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends that Plaintiff, Kyomi Postley's, Motion To Dismiss Minor Plaintiffs (ECF No. 59) be GRANTED.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).