Asare v. Sessions

Filing 12

OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 9 the Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/3/18. (jk) (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

Angelyna Asare,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 2:17-cv-405

Jefferson B. Sessions,

Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Jolson
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff sued Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions ("Defendant") on May 11,
2017. EOF No. 1. On August 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service.

EOF No. 4. Plaintiff responded on September 11, 2017, stating that she
erroneously believed the Clerk would serve Defendant but that she would

complete service as quickly as possible. EOF No. 5. The Court granted Plaintiff
an extension until October 4, 2017, to complete service. EOF No. 6.

On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "Proof of service by Mail," EOF No.
7, which stated that Plaintiff had mailed the relevant documents to Defendant via

United States Postal Service Priority Mall. On October 5, 2017, the Court

informed Plaintiffthat service via priority mail was insufficient and granted

Plaintiff an additional fourteen-day extension to complete service. ECF No. 8.
After Plaintiff failed to perfect service within that period, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this action be
dismissed. ECF No. 9.

Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued the R&R pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b). Pursuant to that rule, the undersigned must determine de novo
any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The undersigned may accept, reject, or modify the
R&R, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
Instructions. Id.

Plaintiff objects to the R&R but does not point to any legal error In the

R&R. ECF No. 10. Instead, she provides a list of reasons why she believes the
case should proceed on the merits Including that Plaintiffs failure to serve the
Complaint was not Intentional delay. However, there Is still no Indication on the
docket that Plaintiff has executed service upon Defendant In a manner that

comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffwas given several
opportunities Over the course of multiple months to serve Defendant.

Upon de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failure to complete
service warrants dismissal. Plaintiffs objection Is OVERRULED, and the R&R Is
ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. This case Is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT