Peters v. Mausser et al

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 MOTION for the Court to Proceed to Judgment filed by William Peters. It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Motion be denied. Objections to R&R due by 5/29/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/12/2015. (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
WILLIAM PETERS,
Petitioner,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-2314
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King

CYNTHIA MAUSSER, et al.,
Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Respondents were granted until February 6, 2015 to respond to the
Petition. Order, ECF 4.

Respondents actually responded to the

Petition on that date. Return of Writ, ECF 5.

Petitioner filed a

traverse to the Return of Writ on February 21, 2015. Reply, ECF 6.
This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for the
Court to Proceed to Judgment, ECF 7 (“Petitioner’s Motion”).
Petitioner’s Motion is based on the incorrect assumption that
Respondents have not responded to the Petition.

Petitioner argues

that, because Respondents have made no response to the Petition, they
have waived all defense to his claims. Petitioner’s Motion. As the
record makes clear, however, Respondents have responded to the
Petition, and Petitioner has, in turn, responded to the Return of
Writ.
Under these circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s
Motion, ECF 7, 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.
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 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)).

May 12, 2015
(Date)

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

to