NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC v. BLAKNEY, 1:16-cv-304. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160822631
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 19) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on June 17, 2016, submitted a Report an
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 19) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on June 17, 2016, submitted a Report and..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 19) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on June 17, 2016, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 19). No objections were filed.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.1
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:
1. Defendant Linda Blakney's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 17) is DENIED;
2. Defendant Linda Blakney is advised of the following:
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), Defendant may file, within thirty (30) days after service of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, a motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997). Defendant's motion must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the District Court and the District Court's statement of the reasons for denying pauper status on appeal. Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
Defendant is notified that if she does not file a motion within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of the District Court's decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), or fails to pay the required filing fee of $505.00 within this same time period, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. Once dismissed for want of prosecution, the appeal will not be reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for pauper status is subsequently tendered, unless Defendant can demonstrate that she did not receive notice of the District Court's decision within the time period prescribed for by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge mistakenly refers to Defendant Linda Blakney as "plaintiff." This error does not impact the soundness of the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Source: Leagle
