Featherstone v. Rieke Leasing Co., Incorporated, incorrectly identified as Rieke Packaging Systems
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS dismissing 3 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 4/24/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 4/10/2018. (ew)(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 2:16-cv-663
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
REIKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action was initiated on June 8, 2016, in the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas, and was removed by Defendant to this Court on July 8, 2016. (Doc. 1). Following the
preliminary pretrial conference (Doc. 8), the undersigned directed the parties to file a joint Rule
26(f) report by September 30, 2016. (Doc. 9). While the parties conferred on two separate
occasions, they could not reach an agreement regarding a joint report. (See Doc. 10). Thus,
Defendant submitted its own Report on September 30, 2016. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to file his
own 26(f) Report, and over the last eighteen months, it appears that Plaintiff has made no effort
to prosecute his case.
Consequently, the undersigned scheduled a telephonic status conference in this matter on
April 10, 2018. (Doc. 11). Counsel for Defendant appeared, but no appearance was made by, or
on behalf of, Plaintiff. Based on this Court’s review of the docket, it appears that Plaintiff no
longer intends to pursue this action. Indeed, Counsel for Defendant represented to the Court that
she has not been in contact with Plaintiff since September 2016. The Court may dismiss an
action for failure to prosecute under its inherent power to control its docket, see Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962), or under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed.
Procedure on Objections
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: April 10, 2018
/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?