Vance v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this case be TERMINATED upon the Courts docket. Objections to R&R due by 2/10/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 1/24/2012. (mdf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARVIN VANCE,
:
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:11-CV-281

-vs-

:

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
:
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

This matter is back on the Court's docket following the issuance of two Orders to pro se
Plaintiff. (Docs. 10, 12). To comply with the 120-day requirement in Civil Rule 4(m), Plaintiff was
required to serve Defendant by December 8, 2012. (See doc. 7). In the Court’s December 8, 2011
Order, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to properly serve Defendant, by December 22,
2011. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff did not meet that deadline. On January 3, 2012, the Court issued a
second Order, granting Plaintiff an additional ten days to serve Defendants, by January 13, 2012.
(Doc. 12).

Following a sua sponte review of this matter, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to

make proper service by January 13, 2012. On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff presented summonses and
USM-285 forms to the Clerk to serve the Department of Veterans Affairs, the United States
Attorney General, and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. See doc. 12.
However, to date, Plaintiff has failed to present executed summonses.

Plaintiff was previously advised that if he does not file proof of service on or before January
13, 2012, his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice under Civil Rule 4(m) for failing to
timely serve Defendant. (Doc. 11). Accordingly, having failed to comply with this Court’s Order
as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, January 24, 2012, Plaintiff’s complaint should
be dismissed.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and this case be TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

January 24, 2012

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with
this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this period is extended to
SEVENTEEN days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B)(C), or (D) and may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for
an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing,
the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it
as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District
Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN
days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this
procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

-2-