Asare v. Sessions

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in that it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 11/7/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 10/24/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANGELYNA ASARE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-405
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson

JEFF B. SESSIONS,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order noting that Plaintiff had yet to effect
service on Defendant. (Doc. 4). Consequently, the Court directed Plaintiff to show good cause
within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed and why an extension of time to
effect service should be allowed. (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). Plaintiff responded on
September 11, 2017, stating that she “erroneously . . . belie[ved] that Defendant would be served
by the Clerk of Courts,” but would “work diligently to ensure that all necessary Court documents
and services are completed and filed as quickly as possible.” (Doc. 5 at 1–2).
In a September 13, 2017 Order, the Court construed Plaintiff’s response as a motion for
extension of time to effect service, and directed Plaintiff to effect service by October 4, 2017.
(Doc. 6). At that time, the Court informed Plaintiff that, although she is proceeding pro se, she is
required nevertheless to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1). The Court also
directed Plaintiff to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i), which governs service of process in cases where the
United States is named as a defendant. (Id.). Finally, the Court warned that if Plaintiff failed to
properly effect service, dismissal would be recommended. (Id. at 2).

On September 25, 2017, in an apparent attempt to comply with the Court’s Order,
Plaintiff filed a “Proof of service by Mail.” (Doc. 7). In that filing, Plaintiff stated that she
“served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and depositing the sealed envelope with
the United States Postal Service Priority Mail with [a] tracking number [] [and] postage fully
prepaid.”

(Id.).

On October 5, 2017, the Court issued yet another Order explaining that

attempting service via priority mail did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Doc. 8 at 1). However, because Plaintiff appeared to be diligently attempting to effect service,
the Court granted Plaintiff an additional fourteen day extension. (Id. at 1–2). Plaintiff was once
again warned that her failure to properly effect service in that time would result in a
recommendation of dismissal. (Id. at 2).
More than fourteen days have passed since the Court’s October 5, 2017 Order, and
Plaintiff has failed to perfect service on Defendant.

Based on the foregoing, the Court

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 24, 2017

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