Johnson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections et al

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION it is recommended that re 11 motion for default judgment be denied. Objections to R&R due by 9/6/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 8/19/13. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

LEROY JOHNSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:13-cv-583
Judge Economus
Magistrate Judge King

vs.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HERREN, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the complaint in this action
on June 19, 2013 but did not submit a summons for any of the named
defendants.

On June 20, 3013, the undersigned ordered that service of

process be effected by the United States Marshals Service on defendant
Herren

and

recommended

that

the

claims

against

Willingham, Ackley and Chamberlain be dismissed.

defendants

Mohr,

Order and Report and

Recommendation, Doc. No. 5.

That recommendation was adopted without

objection on August 6, 2013.

Order, Doc. No. 8.

This matter is now

before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against
all defendants.

Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. No. 11.

The claims against all defendants except defendant Herren have
been

dismissed.

As

to

defendants

Mohr,

Willingham,

Ackley

and

Chamberlain, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is without merit.
As noted, plaintiff has not submitted a summons for defendant Herren
and the record does not indicate that service of process has been
effected

on

this

defendant.

As

it

1

relates

to

defendant

Herren,

plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is likewise without merit.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment, Doc. No. 11, be denied.
If

plaintiff

intends

to

pursue

the

action

against

defendant

Herren, he must provide a copy of the Complaint, a summons and a
Marshal’s service form for this defendant.

Plaintiff is advised that

the claims against defendant Herren will be dismissed if service of
process is not effected on him by October 20, 2013.

See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m).
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 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 of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

2

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: August 19, 2013

3