Wright v. MacConnell

Filing 28

SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; CLERK ORDERED TO ENTER DEFAULT - RE: 27 . Objections to R&R due by 6/6/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/20/2016. (srb)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DWAINE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 3:15-cv-211

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

RION MacCONNELL,

Defendant.

:

SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; CLERK
ORDERED TO ENTER DEFAULT

On May 10, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended this case be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Mr. Wright has correctly
objected that the Court previously recognized he had succeeded in serving Defendant
MacConnell on September 24, 2015. Upon recommittal from Judge Rose (ECF No. 27), the
Magistrate Judge WITHDRAWS that portion of the Report recommending dismissal of the case
as against Rion MacConnell. There has still been no service on U.S. Mint Green, the time for
making such service has expired, and the Magistrate Judge stands on his recommendation that
the case be dismissed without prejudice as to that entity.
1

Defendant MacConnell was served on September 24, 2105, as previously noted, and has
not responded in any way to the Complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), the
Clerk is ORDERED to enter MacConnell’s default.
The Court hereby sets a deadline of July 1, 2016, for Plaintiff to file a motion for default
judgment against MacConnell. Plaintiff’s attention is directed to S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 55.1.

May 20, 2016.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

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 Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are 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. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

2