Hartzell v. Miami County Incarceration Facility
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT: (1) PRO SE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND (2) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 9/5/2017. (srb)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KENNETH S. HARTZELL,
Case No. 3:17-cv-63
MIAMI COUNTY INCARCERATION
District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND (2) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON
THE COURT’S DOCKET
This pro se civil case is before the Court following issuance of an Order to Show Cause
on August 15, 2017 (doc. 13), in which the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to
why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the requirements of Rules 8
and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and further, why the case should not be
dismissed for his failure to timely serve Defendants as required by Rule 4(m). To date, Plaintiff
has neither responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause nor evidenced successful service of
process on Defendants. Accordingly, this case is subject to dismissal. In light of the foregoing,
the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: (1) pro se Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (2) this case be TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.
September 5, 2017
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
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 Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system.
If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is
extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an
extension of the deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may
grant upon a showing of good cause.
Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation
objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is 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. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If,
however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is
extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).
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?