Rieger v. General Dynamics

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 MOTION for Default Judgment against General Dynamics Information Technology filed by Joseph Michael Rieger - The Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motion (doc. 7 ) be denied. Objections to R&R due by 1/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 12/17/13. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JOSEPH M. RIEGER,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 3:13-cv-402

vs.
GENERAL DYNAMICS,

Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

The Court previously granted Defendant’s motion for a 21-day extension of time in
which to file an answer or otherwise respond to pro se Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. 6. Now
before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s motion for a “default judgment and rejection of Defendant’s
request for [an] enlargement of time.” Doc. 7.
Recognizing that the Court has previously granted Defendant additional time in which to
respond to the complaint, Plaintiff’s challenge to that Order is untimely and merits denial.
Additionally, recognizing that the 21-day period referenced above has not expired, Plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment is, at this time, premature.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 7) be denied.

December 17, 2013

1

/s Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being
served with this Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is
extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by
one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be
extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify
the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in
whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall
promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise
directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being
served with a copy thereof.

As is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to

SEVENTEEN days if service of the objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C),
(D), (E), or (F). Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights
on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).