From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Muskingum Co. Sheriff's Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Mar 1, 2013
Civil Action 2:13-cv-0025 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0025

03-01-2013

JEFFERY A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MUSKINGUM CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al., Defendants.


Judge Watson

Magistrate Judge King


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Aramark, Inc., Doc. No. 15. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the motion be denied.

In directing service of process by the Marshals Service, the Court specified that each defendant would have "forty-five days after service of process to respond to the Complaint." Initial Screen of the Complaint, Doc. No. 5. The docket indicates that service of process was effected on defendant Aramark, Inc., on January 22, 2013. Summons Returned Executed, Doc. No. 10. This defendant's response is therefore due on or before March 11, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Thus, the time by which defendant Aramark, Inc., must respond to the Complaint has not yet expired, and this defendant is not in default.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for default judgment, Doc. No. 15, be DENIED.

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 thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 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 thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that 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 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); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

______________________

Norah McCann King

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Johnson v. Muskingum Co. Sheriff's Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Mar 1, 2013
Civil Action 2:13-cv-0025 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2013)
Case details for

Johnson v. Muskingum Co. Sheriff's Dep't

Case Details

Full title:JEFFERY A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MUSKINGUM CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 1, 2013

Citations

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0025 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2013)