Anders v. Dolgencorp, LLC et al

Filing 37

Memorandum Opinion: The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. No. 36 ) and accepts the same. Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 25 ) on plaintiff's sole remaining claim of age discrimination under Ohio law and dismisses the same with prejudice. Judge Sara Lioi on 1/31/2013. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JUNE G. ANDERS,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
DOLGENCORP, L.L.C., et al.,
DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:11CV2098
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the
above-entitled action. (Doc. No. 36.) Under the relevant statute:
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. [. . .]
28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C).
The R&R was filed on January 10, 2013, and was immediately served
electronically. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) and (d), when
computing time for filing objections, January 10th is excluded, every day thereafter is counted, and
three additional days are added. Therefore, objections were due on January 27, 2013, which fell on
a Sunday. Under Rule 6(a)(1)(C), that extended the filing deadline to January 28, 2013.
No objections were filed on or before that deadline. The failure to file written
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo

determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813
(6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); see United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and
accepts the same. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Doc. No. 25) on plaintiff’s sole remaining claim of age discrimination under Ohio law and
DISMISSES the same with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2013
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE