Heid v. Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES DAMRON, Plaintiff, Civil Action 1:25-cv-0107 v. Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers WARDEN, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, AND ORDER Having performed the initial screen of the Amended Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS, at this juncture, the matter can proceed on Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff failed to submit service copies of the Complaint for each Defendant, summonses, and U.S. Marshal service forms. Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit, within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this order, if he intend the Marshal to effect service, a completed summons, Marshal service form, and a copy of the Complaint for service upon each Defendant. If Plaintiff does not comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for want of prosecution.

If Plaintiff complies with this Order, the United States Marshal is DIRECTED to serve each Defendant a copy of the Complaint, a summons, and a copy of this Order by certified mail.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within 14 days, file and serve on all parties any objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with a copy. 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 of by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. 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)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 22, 2025 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE