Fisher v. Samuthram et al

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS granting 11 MOTION to Withdraw 4 Complaint filed by Michael A. Fisher and that claims against this Defendant be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 9/26/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 9/12/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL A. FISHER, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-206 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers v. CHAPLIN EMMANUAL SAMUTHRAM, et al., Defendants. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Withdraw, seeking to withdraw without prejudice his claims against Defendant Emmanual Samuthram. (ECF No. 11.) Although Defendant Samuthram had the opportunity to respond to this Motion (ECF No. 12), he has nevertheless not responded to the Motion. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw the claims against Defendant Emmanual Samuthram be GRANTED and that the claims against this Defendant be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 11.) 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 Afailure 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[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: September 12, 2017 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?