Bair v. Madison Correctional Institutuion et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the 1 Complaint filed by Carl Jay Bair, II be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Objections to R&R due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 8/3/2016. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Carl Jay Bair II, A706-340 @ Madison Correctional Institution, PO Box 740, London OH 43140])

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CARL JAY BAIR, II,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:16-cv-165
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson

MADISON CORRECTION
INSTITUTION, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court issued an Order in this case on July 11, 2016, directing Plaintiff to show cause
within fourteen days as to why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect
timely service and failure to pay the required filing fee. (Doc. 2). More than fourteen days has
passed since July 11, 2016, and Plaintiff has not responded.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides in relevant part:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—
on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Because Plaintiff has not effected service within 90 days and has failed to show cause as
to why this action should not be dismissed, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
1

determination of those portions of the Report or specific proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District Judge of this Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive
further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver 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); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 3, 2016

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2