Rodgers v. Solano County Courts et al
Filing
13
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for want of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 11/12/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 10/26/2015. (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
OTIS LEE RODGERS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-2754
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King
v.
SOLANO COUNTY COURTS, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim for relief.
Order, ECF No. 11. However,
plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days in which to file a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, and was advised
that his “failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff has not filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1
It therefore appears that plaintiff does not intend to pursue habeas
corpus relief.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with
prejudice, for want of prosecution.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
1
Indeed, the copy of the Order mailed by the Court to the plaintiff was
returned with the notation “Return to Sender – Refused”). Mail Returned as
Undeliverable, ECF No. 12.
1
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)).
s/ Norah McCann King___
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
October 26, 2015
2
to
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?