IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RIDING FILMS, INC., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Civil Action 2:13-cv-46 

 Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

JOHN DOES 129-193, 

 Defendants. 

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Denham and Wintle have been 

settled and dismissed, ECF 65; Order, ECF 79, but the counterclaims 

asserted by these defendants for declaratory judgment remain pending. 

On February 10, 2015, all remaining parties were directed to report, 

within fourteen (14) days, on the status of the remaining claims, 

Order, ECF 80, and the remaining parties were expressly advised that 

their failure to report “will be construed as an abandonment of any 

claims asserted by them and is likely to result in the dismissal of 

such claims.” Id. at 2. Counterclaimants Denham and Wintle have failed 

to comply with that order and it appears that they do not intend to 

pursue their counterclaims. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the counterclaims asserted by 

defendants Denham and Wintle be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 

 Plaintiff has asked for an extension of time to file a motion for 

summary judgment addressing the claims against defendant Glasco. 

Response to Status Report [sic], ECF 83. That request is GRANTED. All 

Case: 2:13-cv-00046-ALM-NMK Doc #: 84 Filed: 03/06/15 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

motions for summary judgment must be filed, if at all, by March 20, 

2015. 

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report 

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections 

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy 

thereof. 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 by the District Judge and waiver of the right to 

appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. 

Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that 

“failure to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendations 

constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the 

district court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 

984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant waived appeal of district 

court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 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 

Case: 2:13-cv-00046-ALM-NMK Doc #: 84 Filed: 03/06/15 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to 

preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)). 

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

March 6, 2015 

Case: 2:13-cv-00046-ALM-NMK Doc #: 84 Filed: 03/06/15 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>