Santibanez Mariche et al v. Walbert Trucking, Inc. et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION That the Court dismiss this action 1 . Objections to R&R due by 3/27/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 3/10/2014. (Copies mailed to Plts' via regular U.S. mail and certified mail, receipt #7009 2820 0003 5796 3539-Maria Rangel; receipt # 7009 2820 0003 5796 4277-Aurelio Mariche.) (sln1)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AURELIO SANTIBANEZ MARICHE, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action 2:13-cv-0979 Judge Edmund A. Sargus Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers v. WALBERT TRUCKING, INC., et. al., Defendants. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on October 1, 2013. A summons was issued to Defendant, Walbert Trucking, Inc., on October 1, 2013 but, to date, has not been returned as executed. (ECF No. 2.) Summonses have not been completed or issued to the other Defendants. On February 11, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to effectuate service pursuant to Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 3.) To date, Plaintiffs have not responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. Nor have Plaintiffs attempted to perfect service over Defendants. 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: March 10, 2014 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?