Marshall v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparal Inc

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 1/23/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/6/2015. (pes1) (This document has been sent by the Clerks Office 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
ZAMBRINA A. MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1915
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King

ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER
APPAREL, INC.,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 18, 2014, after plaintiff failed to appear at the
preliminary pretrial conference, plaintiff was ordered to show cause,
by January 5, 2015, why the case should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute.

Order, ECF 5.

Plaintiff was specifically advised that

her failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the action.
Id. Plaintiff has made no response to that Order.

It therefore

appears that plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of this case.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
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

1

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
January 6, 2015
Date

2

to