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.)

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