Quinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 30

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 4 Initial Screen and 5 Complaint: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that teh Court dismiss Defendants Mohr and Freeman from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. Objections to R&R due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 1/9/2012. (er1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD L. QUINN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-268
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

v.

ROBIN KNAB, WARDEN,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court conducted its initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A on March 31, 2011, causing Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed on that
date. (ECF Nos. 3 and 4.) To date, Plaintiff has not effected service of process as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) over Defendants Mohr and Freeman. On December 19,
2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why the Court should not
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mohr and Freeman without prejudice and why the
Court should allow an extension of time to effect service. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff has not
responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. The undersigned, therefore, RECOMMENDS that
the Court dismiss Defendants Mohr and Freeman from this action without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex
Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,
appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d
981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to
specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation
omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 9, 2012

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
United States Magistrate Judge

2