Bryant v. Perry et al

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - It is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect timely service of process. Objections to R&R due by 8/31/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 8/17/2017. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SHAUN A. BRYAN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:16-cv-1189
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.

MAJOR PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation
on the Court’s July 24, 2017 Show Cause Order ordering Plaintiff to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process and why an
extension of time should be allowed to effect service. (ECF No. 17.) To date, Plaintiff has failed
to respond the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for
failure to timely effect service of process.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
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 findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made. Upon proper objections, a 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).

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2