Reeves v. Metro Bus Headquarters

S.D. Ohio

Reeves v. Metro Bus Headquarters

DecidedJanuary 15, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00579

StatusUnknown

This text of Reeves v. Metro Bus Headquarters (Reeves v. Metro Bus Headquarters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reeves v. Metro Bus Headquarters, (S.D. Ohio 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

VERNON REEVES

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-579 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Bowman METRO BUS HEADQUARTERS,

Defendant.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s December 9, 2020 Report and Recommendation ((“R&R”), Doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff Vernon Reeves’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 6). The Magistrate Judge found that Reeves’s Motion was not well taken because there was “no indication that the defendant had been properly served with [Reeves’s] Summons and Complaint.” (R&R, Doc. 8, #191). The Magistrate Judge also noted that, on November 30, 2020, the Court had ordered Reeves to re-serve the defendant within 30 days. (See Doc. 7). In light of that Order, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Reeve’s Motion was moot. The R&R advised all parties that failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See R&R, Doc. 8, #20); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended

1 Refers to PageID#. to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture’); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). More than a month has now passed, and Reeves has yet to file an objection to the R&R. Nor is there any reason to think that one is forthcoming. The docket indicates that, heeding the Court’s November 30 Order, Reeves properly re-served the defendant on December 15. (See Docs. 11-12). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) and DENIES AS MOOT Reeves’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 6). SO ORDERED.

January 15, 2020 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

VERNON REEVES

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-579 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Bowman METRO BUS HEADQUARTERS,

Defendant.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s December 9, 2020 Report and Recommendation ((“R&R”), Doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff Vernon Reeves’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 6). The Magistrate Judge found that Reeves’s Motion was not well taken because there was “no indication that the defendant had been properly served with [Reeves’s] Summons and Complaint.” (R&R, Doc. 8, #191). The Magistrate Judge also noted that, on November 30, 2020, the Court had ordered Reeves to re-serve the defendant within 30 days. (See Doc. 7). In light of that Order, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Reeve’s Motion was moot. The R&R advised all parties that failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See R&R, Doc. 8, #20); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended

1 Refers to PageID#. to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture’); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). More than a month has now passed, and Reeves has yet to file an objection to the R&R. Nor is there any reason to think that one is forthcoming. The docket indicates that, heeding the Court’s November 30 Order, Reeves properly re-served the defendant on December 15. (See Docs. 11-12). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) and DENIES AS MOOT Reeves’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 6). SO ORDERED.

January 15, 2020 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reeves v. Metro Bus Headquarters, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-metro-bus-headquarters-ohsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack