Cathcart v. Scott et al

Filing 31

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 30 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Larry D. Cathcart, Jr. It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Motion be denied. Objections to R&R due by 12/10/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/23/2015. (pes)(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

LARRY D. CATHCART, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
civil Action 2:13-cv-502
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

vs.

SHERIFF ZACK SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action, Motion,
ECF No. 27, was granted on November 18, 2015, Order, ECF No. 28, and
final judgment was entered that same date. Judgment, ECF No. 29. This
matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s November 23, 2015
“Initial Screen of the Complaint”, which has been docketed as a Motion
for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 30.
This action is no longer pending in this Court. Under these
circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Motion for
Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 30, be denied.
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.

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
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

to

recommendation).

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
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
November 23, 2015
Date

to