McKinney v. Kasich et al

Filing 34

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 3 Complaint: It is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Defendant Lawson as a Defendant in this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. Objections to R&R due by 11/2/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 10/16/2015. (mas)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL P. MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:15-cv-2043
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

GOVERNOR JOHN R. KASICH, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on May 19, 2015. On September 22, 2015, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to effect service upon Defendant Lawson within fourteen days or to
alternatively show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 4(m).
(ECF No. 32.) To date, Plaintiff has not effected service upon Defendant Lawson. Nor has
Plaintiff responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that
the Court DISMISS Defendant Lawson as a Defendant in this action without prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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: October 16, 2015

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2