Taylor v. Kashubeck

Full title: BRENTFORD TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. DR. KASHUBECK, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Aug 26, 2009

Civil Action 2:09-CV-518 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:09-CV-518.

August 26, 2009

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NORAH KING, Magistrate Judge

Counsel has been appointed for plaintiff in connection with his claim for interim injunctive relief. Order, Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff has asked, once again, that counsel be appointed to represent plaintiff in connection with his remaining claims. Motion, Doc. No. 24. Because the case has not progressed to the point that the Court is able to even preliminarily evaluate the merits of plaintiff's remaining claims, plaintiff's motion, Doc. No. 24, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings.

Plaintiff has also moved, once again, for the entry of default and default judgment as against defendant Karnes. Motion, Doc. No. 25. As even plaintiff concedes in his motion, this defendant had until August 24, 2009, to respond to the Complaint. Defendant Karnes in fact filed an answer on August 24, 2009. Answer, Doc. No. 22. Defendant Karnes is therefore not in default for response to the Complaint. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for default judgment, Doc. No. 25, be DENIED.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within ten (10) 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); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.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 Federation of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).