R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 372-401

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. Objections to R&R due by 9/9/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 8/21/2013. (sln1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

R & D FILM 1, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:12-cv-1137
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

DOES 372-401,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action on December 10, 2012. On July 12, 2013, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to amend its Complaint within thirty days to substitute in the real names
for its Doe Defendants and to perfect service on those named partes as required under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or to alternatively show cause why the Court should not dismiss
this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not moved to amend its
Complaint to substitute in the real names for its Doe Defendants. Nor has Plaintiff responded to
the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss 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: August 21,2013

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

2