Mobley v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

Full title: James C. A. Mobley, Plaintiff v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and…

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2014

Civil Action 2:13-cv-01130 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:13-cv-01130

01-31-2014

James C. A. Mobley, Plaintiff v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant

Mark R. Abel

Judge Watson

Magistrate Judge Abel

Order and

Report and Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that plaintiff James C. A. Mobley's December 5, 2013 motion for summary judgment (doc. 5), December 10, 2013 motion for summary judgment (doc. 7), and January 29, 2014 motion for summary judgment (doc. 18) be DENIED. Plaintiff's motions are premature. No discovery has been conducted, and defendant was not served until January 28, 2014.

The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to remove documents 10 and 18 from the pending motions list. In his January 13, 2014 motion for an order defendant to have any all legal property served to plaintiff (doc. 10) plaintiff states that he is not receiving all of his legal mail in a timely manner. Plaintiff should raise his concerns regarding his mail through the proper administrative procedures at the prison. His claim is not properly before this Court.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court, 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)(B); Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

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 waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

Mark R. Abel

United States Magistrate Judge