Chasteen v. Johnson et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting 76 Motion to Dismiss; granting 79 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 82 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 1/9/2012. (cw)

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.

ORDER
On

December

21,

29012,

the

United

States

Magistrate

Judge

recommended that the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants
Nurse

Hoffman,

Nurse

Landon,

Nurse

John

Doe

and

the

otherwise

unidentified 2d and 3rd shift captains, Doc. Nos. 76, 79, be granted
for failure to effect service of process in a timely fashion.

Report

and Recommendation, Doc. No. 82. This matter is now before the Court
on plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No.
84.

The Court will consider the matter de novo.

636(b);

See 28 U.S.C. §

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

This case was filed on March 15, 2012.

Plaintiff, who is no

longer incarcerated, has been granted a number of extensions of time
in which to effect service of process on the defendants.
due on November 21, 2012.

Order, Doc. No. 59.

Service was

The motions to dismiss

for failure to effect service of process, Doc. Nos. 76, 79, were filed
on

December

11,

2012

and

December

13,

2012,

respectively.

The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions be granted and that
plaintiff’s

request

for

yet

another

1 

extension

of

time

to

effect

service of process on the remaining defendants be denied, reasoning
that to do so “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

effective service of process.”

by

plaintiff’s

delays

in

Report and Recommendation, Doc. No.

82, p. 2.
In his objections, plaintiff contends that service of process on
defendants Hoffman and Landon was effective.

Although the docket

initially reflected service of process on these defendants, Doc. Nos.
67, 69, process was thereafter returned to the Court with the notation
that service of process had been accepted – not by the defendants
themselves – but erroneously by staff at the Madison Correctional
Institution.

See Doc. No. 75 (“There is no nurse John Doe at Madison

Correctional Institution. . .;” “There is no nurse Landon at Madison
Correctional institution . . .;” “There is no nurse Hoffman at Madison
Correctional Institution . . .”). Nowhere in the record does it appear
that these defendants were served with process in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4.

Plaintiff’s objection in this regard is therefore

without merit.
Plaintiff also asks, once again, for an extension of time in
which to effect service of process on the unnamed defendants.

This

Court

been

agrees

with

the

Magistrate

Judge

that

plaintiff

has

accorded considerable accommodation and flexibility in the matter of
service of process.

The action has now been pending for more than
2 

nine

(9)

months.

The

Court

is

unwilling

to

grant

plaintiff

yet

another extension of time in which to effect service of process on any
defendants who have not yet been served with process.
Plaintiff’s
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

objections

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation

are

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 82, is ADOPTED AND
The motions to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Nurse

Hoffman, Nurse Landon, Nurse John Doe and the otherwise unidentified
2d and 3rd shift captains, Doc. Nos. 76, 79, are GRANTED.

s/Algenon L. Marble
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge

3