Joseph v. Licking County et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 35 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 4/23/14. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
David A. Joseph, Sr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-803

Licking County, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed the instant prisoner civil rights action
against Licking County, Ohio, and various government entities and
defendants.
all

On November 29, 2012, an order was entered dismissing

defendants

with

the

exception

of

the

Licking-Muskingum

Community Corrections Center (LMCCC), against which plaintiff had
asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Doc. 5.

See

On October 17, 2013, LMCCC filed a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) on the ground that it was never
properly served. Plaintiff filed no response to the motion, and on
December 18, 2013, this court entered an order granting the motion
and dismissing the complaint against LMCCC without prejudice.
Doc. 29.

See

On January 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for relief

from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing that he
should be relieved from judgment based on excusable neglect because
he is incarcerated and has limited resources.
This

matter

is

now

before

the

court

See Doc. 33.
on

the

report

and

recommendation of the magistrate judge filed on March 25, 2014, in
which the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion for
relief from judgment be denied.

The magistrate judge concluded

that plaintiff had not shown excusable neglect for failing to serve

LMCCC within 120 days as required under Rule 4(m).

Doc. 35, p. 2.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties
that the failure to object to the report and recommendation within
fourteen days “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.”

Doc. 35, p. 4.

Noting that the time period for filing objections to the
report and recommendation has expired, and that no objections have
been filed, the court adopts the report and recommendation (Doc.
35).

The motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 33) is denied.

Date: April 23, 2014

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge