Ofoe v. Department of Defense

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Stephanie A. Ofoe. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICEpursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service. Objections to R&R due by 8/28/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 8/14/2018. (daf)(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

STEPHANIE A. OFOE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:18-cv-232
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed her Complaint (ECF
No. 1) on March 19, 2018, against Defendant Department of Defense. On July 10, 2018, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to
timely effect service over Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF
No. 4.) As the Court explained in the July 10 Show Cause Order, pursuant to Rule 4(m):
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service.

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