Williams v. Ronette Burkes

Filing 45

Order: Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file objections (Doc. No. 41 ) is denied as moot, since the objections have already been filed. (See Doc. No. 42 .) Petitioner's motion to correct the case caption on the R&R (Do c. No. 43 ) is noted, but denied because the Court will utilize the correct caption when ruling on the objections to the R&R. The Court has examined the R&R's recommendation to deny the motion to intervene (Doc. No. 34 ) because it fails to e stablish any conditional or unconditional right to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The Court accepts the recommendation, finding it to be correct. Therefore, the motion to intervene is denied. (Related Doc # 39 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/21/2016. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

AGATHA MARTIN WILLIAMS,

PETITIONER,
vs.
RONETTE BURKES,

RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:14-cv-1304

JUDGE SARA LIOI

ORDER

Before the Court are the following motions: motion to intervene as “plaintiffs” (Doc. No.
34); motion for extension of time to file objections (Doc. No. 41); and motion to correct the case
caption on the report and recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 43).
Doc. No. 41 is denied as moot, since the objections have already been filed. (See Doc.
No. 42.)
Doc. No. 43 is noted, but denied because the Court will utilize the correct caption when
ruling on the objections to the R&R.
Doc. No. 34 is addressed in the R&R, along with the substantive, underlying issues in the
case. Although the Court still has under advisement the overall objections to the R&R on the
underlying issues, it notes that the objections do not address the R&R’s recommendation with
respect to the intervention motion. Any such objection has, therefore, been waived by petitioner.
See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1985). The Court has examined the R&R’s recommendation

to deny the motion to intervene because it fails to establish any conditional or unconditional right
to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The Court accepts the recommendation, finding it to be
correct. Therefore, the motion to intervene is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2016
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2