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)

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