Long v. Mohr et al

Filing 35

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 28 MOTION for Default Judgment against All Defendants filed by Mark M. Long. It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Motion be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 12/31/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/14/2015. (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

MARK M. LONG,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:15-cv-1616
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

GARY MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state inmate currently housed at the Madison
Correctional Institution (“MaCI”), filed this civil rights action on
May 6, 2015 against 41 employees of MaCI and the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). This matter is now before the
Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against All
Defendants, ECF No. 28.
In his motion, plaintiff argues that the defendants served with
process failed to respond to the Complaint within twenty-one days.
Motion for Default Judgment against All Defendants.

However, the

Court granted all defendants forty-five (45) days after service of
process to respond to the Complaint. Initial Screen of the Complaint,
ECF No. 4. Many (but not all)of the defendants were served with
process on September 3 or 4, 2015, see Summons Returned Executed, ECF
No. 16 - 19, and their responses were therefore due by October 19,
2015. On that date, the responding defendants filed the Motion to

1

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 23. The defendants who
have been served with process are therefore not in default.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment against All Defendants, ECF No. 28, 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 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

2

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)).

December 14, 2015

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

3