Shanaberg v. Licking County et al

Filing 47

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Ty Shanaberg. It is RECOMMENDED that the this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against John Doe 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. Objections to R&R due by 12/1/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 11/17/2017. (kpt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TY SHANABERG,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:16-cv-1209
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.

LICKING COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on December 29, 2016 against numerous defendants,
including pseudonymously-named Defendants John Doe 1, 2, and 3. (ECF No. 1.) On October
10, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed
against John Doe 1, 2, and 3 without prejudice for failure to timely effect service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 42.)
To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that the this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against John
Doe 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to Rule 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