IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL HARRINGTON, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-736 

 Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

DELTA CAREER EDUCATION 

CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the failure of Defendants Delta 

Career Education Corporation and The Miami-Jacobs Business College Company, d/b/a MiamiJacobs Career College (collectively, “Delta”) to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order. (ECF 

No. 26.) 

On March 6, 2018, the Court granted the motions to withdraw as counsel for Delta and 

directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the Order via regular and certified mail to Delta at the 

addresses listed on the Complaint. (ECF No. 22 at 1–2.) In the same Order, the Court 

specifically advised Delta that it could only proceed in this litigation through licensed counsel. 

(Id. at 2–3.) The Court also scheduled a status conference for April 6, 2018, ordered Delta to 

retain a trial attorney to appear on Delta’s behalf, and warned that failure to appear through 

counsel at the status conference would result in the recommendation that default be entered 

against Delta and may ultimately result in default judgment against Delta. (Id. at 3.) 
2 

On April 6, 2018, Delta did not appear or otherwise attempt to move for continuance of 

the status conference. (ECF No. 27 at 1.) The Undersigned ordered Delta to show cause within 

fourteen days why the Court should not enter default against it for failure to appear and defend. 

(Id.) The Undersigned specifically advised Delta that default judgment could be entered against 

it if it failed to respond to the Show Cause Order. (Id.) The Undersigned further directed the 

Clerk to send a copy of the Order to Delta at the four addresses listed in the Complaint. (Id. at 

2.) 

To date, Delta has not responded to the Show Cause Order. Notably, the docket reflects 

that one of the copies of the Order dated April 6, 2018, mailed to The Miami-Jacobs Business 

College Company, d/b/a Miami-Jacobs Career College was returned to the Clerk as 

undeliverable, bearing the handwritten word “Refused” on the envelope. (ECF No. 28.) Under 

the present circumstances, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court direct the Clerk to 

enter default against Defendants Delta Career Education Corporation and The Miami-Jacobs 

Business College Company, d/b/a Miami-Jacobs Career College and that, once default is entered, 

that Plaintiff be permitted to move for default judgment. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

 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 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 
3 

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 an recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate 

review of issues not raised in those objections is waiver. 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: April 24, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE