Burse et al v. Jenkins et al
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Default Judgment for Failing to Obey a Discovery Order be DENIED. (Doc. 50 ). The Motion to Compel (Doc. 42 ) and Motion of Judicial Inquiry (Doc. 51 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 10/16/2016. (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
Civil Action 2:15-cv-2992
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting
that this Court order Defendants to provide interrogatory responses. (Doc. 42 at 1). Defendants
indicated that they would respond (Doc. 49), and the discovery deadline has since passed.
Because the discovery dispute appeals to have been resolved, the Motion to Compel is DENIED
as MOOT. (Doc. 42).
Also before this Court is a Motion for Default Judgment for Failing to Obey a Discovery
Order. (Doc. 50). In the Motion, Plaintiff relies on an Order granting Defendants an extension
until August 26, 2016, to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. 47). Contrary to
Plaintiff’s argument, Defendants filed a timely response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel on
August 26, 2016. (Doc. 49). Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Default
Judgment for Failing to Obey a Discovery Order be DENIED. (Doc. 50).
Finally, Plaintiff filed a “Motion of Judicial Inquiry,” requesting verification that the
Motion for Default Judgment for Failing to Obey a Discovery Order was filed. (Doc. 51).
Specifically, Plaintiff asks this Court to verify the filing or allow him to re-file the Motion. (Id.
at 1). Because the Motion was indeed filed, the “Motion of Judicial Inquiry” is DENIED as
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 14, 2016
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?