Waitz-Kudla et al v. USA Truck Inc et al

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Sydney Waitz-Kudla. It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Keith Kudla be dismissed without prejudice, for failure of service of process. Objections to R&R due by 1/30/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/13/2014. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SYDNEY WAITZ-KUDLA,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:13-cv-564
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.

USA TRUCK Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this litigation through counsel on August 14, 2013.

On

December 18, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiffs to show cause, on or before January 7,
2014, why their complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice as to two
Defendants, Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., and Keith Kudla, for failure to achieve
timely service of process as required under Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiffs have
filed no response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Accordingly, IT IS

RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and
Keith Kudla be dismissed without prejudice, for failure of service of process.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SYDNEY WAITZ-KUDLA,

Case No. 1:13-cv-564

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.

USA TRUCK Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s)
of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support
of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections.

Failure to make

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).