IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TARRIER STEEL COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-528 

 Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

WESEX CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the failure of Defendant Wesex 

Corporation’s (“Wesex”) failure to comply with Court Orders directing it to participate in this 

case through a licensed attorney. As the record reflects, the Court has advised Wesex three times 

that, as a corporation, it may only proceed through licensed counsel and twice cautioned that 

failure to do so would result in the recommendation that default be entered against it. (ECF Nos. 

9, 12 and 17.) Nevertheless, Wesex did not appear through counsel as ordered at the September 

11, 2018 conference. Instead, Greg Koledin, Wesex’s principal, who is not an attorney, appeared 

for the conference. Mr. Koledin acknowledged the Court’s previous Orders and recognized that 

default would be entered against Wesex as a result of the failure. 

More specifically, on July 10, 2018, counsel for Wesex moved to withdraw as attorneys. 

(ECF No. 8.) The Court allowed Wesex an opportunity to respond and first advised Wesex that 

it could not proceed as a corporation without an attorney. (ECF No. 9.) When Wesex did not 

respond, the Court granted the Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Wesex and directed the Clerk 
2 

to mail a copy of the Order via regular and certified mail to Wesex at the addresses listed on the 

Complaint. (ECF No. 12 at 1–2.) In the same Order, the Court specifically advised Wesex that 

it could only proceed in this litigation through licensed counsel. (Id. at 2.) The Court also 

scheduled a status conference for September 11, 2018, ordered Wesex to retain a trial attorney to 

appear on its behalf, and warned that failure to appear through counsel at the status conference 

would result in the recommendation that default be entered against Wesex and may ultimately 

result in default judgment against it. (Id.) When it granted Plaintiff and Defendant CCL Label 

Inc.’s Joint Motion to Conduct Status Conference by Telephone, the Court again ordered Wesex 

to retain a trial attorney to appear at the conference on its behalf and warned that failure to do so 

would result in the recommendation that default be entered against it. (ECF No. 17.) 

Nevertheless, on September 11, 2018, Wesex did not appear at the status conference. 

(ECF No. 27 at 1.) Instead, its principal appeared and acknowledged that default would be 

entered against Wesex. 

Under the present circumstances, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court direct 

the Clerk to enter default against Defendant Wesex Corporation as to Plaintiff Tarrier Steel 

Company’s Complaint (ECF No. 11) against it as well as Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff CCL 

Label Inc.’s Cross-Claim (ECF No. 6). It is further RECOMMENDED that, once default is 

entered, that Plaintiff and Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff be permitted to move for default 

judgment against Wesex Corporation. 

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 
3 

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). 

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)). 

Date: September 17, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE