Harris v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 25

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by A. Jubal Harris in that it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 12/5/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 11/16/16. (sem)(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

A. JUBAL HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:15-cv-2981
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

RICHARD K. DAVIS,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on November 10, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On
October 24, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to effect service upon Richard Davis, the sole
remaining Defendant in this action, within fourteen days or to alternatively show cause why the
Court should not dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 24.) The Court cautioned
Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of this case without
prejudice. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order.

To date,

Plaintiff has not effected service upon Defendant Richard Davis. Nor has Plaintiff responded to
the Court’s Show Cause Order.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), when a plaintiff fails to serve a
defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint, and fails to show good cause for lack of
service, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly,
having failed to effect service or comply with the Court’s Orders, it is RECOMMENDED that
the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.

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)).

Date: November 16, 2016

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

2