Doe v. Ortiz et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS dismissing 1 Complaint for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 11/13/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 10/30/2017. (ew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Civil Action 2:17-cv-500
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
ANAHI M. ORTIZ, M.D., et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order noting that Plaintiff had yet to effect
service on Defendants. (Doc. 2). Consequently, the Court directed Plaintiff to show good cause
within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed and why an extension of time to
effect service should be allowed. (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). More than fourteen days
have passed since the Court’s October 11, 2017 Order, and Plaintiff has failed to respond. Based
on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962).
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 30, 2017
/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?