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.)

Download PDF
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?