U.S. v. NINE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS IN U.S. CURRENCY, 3:13-cv-02361. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20141211c41
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY J. HELMICK, District Judge. Before me is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, filed on October 15, 2014, recommending denial of Plaintiff the United States of America's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 13; Doc. No. 8). Under the relevant statute, "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY J. HELMICK, District Judge. Before me is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, filed on October 15, 2014, recommending denial of Plaintiff the United States of America's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 13; Doc. No. 8). Under the relevant statute, "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)..
More
ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK, District Judge.
Before me is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, filed on October 15, 2014, recommending denial of Plaintiff the United States of America's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 13; Doc. No. 8). Under the relevant statute, "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2001). In this case, the fourteen day period has elapsed and no objections have been filed.
The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) ("only those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review").
Following review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
