Chasteen v. Johnson et al

Filing 82

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that 76 MOTION to Dismiss defendants Nurse Hoffman, Nurse Landon, Nurse John Doe, 2nd Shift Captain, 3rd Shift Captain & 79 Amended MOTION to Dismiss Defendants John Does, Hoffman, and Landon be GRANTED. Objections to R&R due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/21/2012. (kk2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ADAM CHASTEEN,
Case No. 2:12-cv-229
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

Plaintiff,
v.
ROD JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, filed this action on March
15, 2012; the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint, combined,
assert claims against 28 defendants. The action has been marked by
plaintiff’s repeated attempts to avoid the expense and inconvenience
of effecting service of process on each of the defendants.
Motion for Special Service of Process, Doc. No. 19;
Complaint,

Doc.

No.

29.

Plaintiff

has

been

See, e.g.,

Motion to Amend

granted

a

number

of

extensions of time in which to take all action that would permit the
United States Marshals Service to effect service of process,
e.g., Order, Doc. No.39;

Order, Doc.

November 21, 2012, Order, Doc. No. 59.

No. 52,

most

see,

recently to

Plaintiff was warned that

there would be no further extension of that date and that his failure
to

demonstrate

effective

service

of

process

on

all

remaining

defendants would result in the dismissal of his claims against any
unserved defendant.

Id. at 4. The docket reflects that service of

process has not been completed on defendants Nurse Jane Doe, Nurse
Landon,

and

Nurse

Hoffman.

Doc.

1 

No.

75.

Two

other

defendants

referred to in the original Complaint or Amended Complaint only by
their work shift and position have also not been served with process.
The Ohio Attorney General, making a special appearance on behalf of
these persons, has moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them.
State

of

Ohio’s

Motion

to

Dismiss

Captain John Doe (Second Shift) MaCI;
MaCI;

Nurse

Insufficient

Hoffman;
Service

of

Nurse

John

Process,

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

Against

Captain John Doe, (Third Shift)
Doe;

Doc.

No.

and
76;

Nurse
Amended

Landon
Motion

for
to

Dismiss, Doc. No. 79.
In response, plaintiff asks for yet another extension of time,
until February 15, 2013, to effect service of process on the remaining
named defendants;

he asks that the claims against the remaining Doe

defendants remain pending discovery of their identities and subsequent
service.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition to the State of Ohio’s

Motion to Dismiss Defendants for Insufficient Service of Process, Doc.
No. 80.
This case has now been pending for more than nine (9) months and
service of process has not yet been completed on certain defendants.
To grant plaintiff yet another extension would result in continued
delay of the proceedings and in undue prejudice to the current parties
as well as to parties not yet served with process – and indeed to the
Court and the community at large, whose interest in the speedy and
expeditious administration of justice has already been compromised by
plaintiff’s delays in effective service of process.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the State of Ohio’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Against Captain John Doe (Second Shift)
2 

MaCI;

Captain John Doe, (Third Shift) MaCI;

John Doe;

Nurse Hoffman;

Nurse

and Nurse Landon for Insufficient Service of Process, Doc.

No. 76 and these defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 79,
be GRANTED.
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.
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

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 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 of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

December 21, 2012

s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

3