Riding Films, Inc. v. Does 129-193

Filing 84

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is RECOMMENDED that the counterclaims asserted by defendants Denham and Wintle be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Request for extension of time to file motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Motion due by 3/20/2015. Objections to R&R due by 3/23/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 3/6/2015. (pes1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RIDING FILMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:13-cv-46
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

JOHN DOES 129-193,
Defendants.
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Denham and Wintle have been
settled and dismissed, ECF 65; Order, ECF 79, but the counterclaims
asserted by these defendants for declaratory judgment remain pending.
On February 10, 2015, all remaining parties were directed to report,
within fourteen (14) days, on the status of the remaining claims,
Order, ECF 80, and the remaining parties were expressly advised that
their failure to report “will be construed as an abandonment of any
claims asserted by them and is likely to result in the dismissal of
such claims.” Id. at 2. Counterclaimants Denham and Wintle have failed
to comply with that order and it appears that they do not intend to
pursue their counterclaims.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the counterclaims asserted by
defendants Denham and Wintle be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff has asked for an extension of time to file a motion for
summary judgment addressing the claims against defendant Glasco.
Response to Status Report [sic], ECF 83. That request is GRANTED. All

motions for summary judgment must be filed, if at all, by March 20,
2015.

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
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

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

constituted

object
a

waiver

to

the

of

[the

magistrate
defendant’s]

judge’s

recommendations

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

magistrate

of

judge’s

pretrial
report

motion
and

by

failing

recommendation).

to

timely
Even

object

when

to

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

2

fails

to

specify

the

issues

of

contention,

does

not

suffice

preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
March 6, 2015

to