Reese v. Holbrook et al
Filing
4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Destin Dezwyn Reese. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Judge Michael Holbrook, Prosecutor Tyler McCoy, and Ryan Ward, Esq., be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursu ant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service. Objections to R&R due by 2/12/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 1/29/2025. (mas)(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
DESTIN DEZWYN REESE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action 2:24-cv-3914
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
JUDGE MICHAEL HOLBROOK, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 3, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not
dismiss her claims against Defendants, Judge Michael Holbrook, Prosecutor Tyler McCoy, and
Ryan Ward, Esq., without prejudice for failure to effect service and why the Court should allow
an extension of time to effect service. (ECF No. 3.) To date, Plaintiff has not made proof of
service to the Court as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) or responded in any way
to the Show Cause Order.
Plaintiff was previously cautioned that failure to perfect service over Defendant would
result in her claims against Defendants being dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 3.) It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Judge Michael Holbrook, Prosecutor Tyler McCoy, and Ryan Ward,
Esq., 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?