Pacheco v. Tieman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Teresa A. Pacheco, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:25cv114 Shane Tieman, et al. Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on April 15, 2025 (Doc. 7). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties may forfeit rights on appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 7) have been filed and the time to do so has expired. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 7) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b); Newberry v. Silverman, 789 F.3d 636, 646 (6th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff is permitted to move for leave to file an Amended Complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of this Order. Any Amended Complaint must set forth in clear, short and concise terms the names of each Defendant, the specific claims for relief attributable to each Defendant, and the factual allegations, including dates to the extent Plaintiff 1 knows them, supporting each such claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. As required by S.D. Ohio Local Rule 5.1, the Amended Complaint should be legible and double-spaced. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court 2