Marshall v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc.

Full title: ZAMBRINA A. MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 2015

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1915 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1915

01-06-2015

ZAMBRINA A. MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, INC., Defendant.

Magistrate Judge King

Judge Smith

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On December 18, 2014, after plaintiff failed to appear at the preliminary pretrial conference, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, by January 5, 2015, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Order, ECF 5. Plaintiff was specifically advised that her failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the action. Id. Plaintiff has made no response to that Order. It therefore appears that plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of this case.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

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 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 "failure 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] 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)).

s/Norah McCann King

Norah M^cCann King

United States Magistrate Judge
January 6, 2015
Date