McNeal v. Serene Home Health Services, LLC

Filing 27

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that default judgment be entered against Defendant Serene Home Health Services, LLC, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Objections to R&R due by 2/20/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry on 2/5/2024. (srb)(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
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
ASHLEY MCNEAL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERENE HOME HEALTH SERVS., et
al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:23-cv-00013
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 16, 2023, Counsel for Defendant Serene Home Health Services, LLC
(“Defendant Serene”) moved for leave to withdraw from this matter. (Doc. No. 18.) The
Court granted that motion and stayed these proceedings for thirty days so as to afford
Defendant Serene an opportunity to obtain new counsel. (Doc. No. 19.) That stay
concluded and no attorney entered an appearance on Defendant Serene’s behalf.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order directing
Defendant Serene to obtain counsel within thirty days. (Doc. No. 21.) That Order
cautioned: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY
RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTER
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV.
P. 55. (Id. at PageID 181 (emphasis in original).) The thirty-day deadline has now passed,
and again no attorney has entered an appearance on Defendant Serene’s behalf.

1

As a corporate entity, Defendant Serene “may not proceed pro se but must be
represented by licensed counsel.” Corey Lea Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. 1105969, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 26305, at *4 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2013) (italics added). See
also Edgar v. Westchester Parkway Consulting, No. 2:21-CV-00533, 2023 WL 6520357,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2023) (Jolson, M.J.) (report and recommendation adopted and
default judgment entered at 2023 WL 6517541 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2023) (Watson, D.J.)).
By failing to obtain counsel, Defendant Serene “has failed to plead or otherwise defend”
in this case and is subject to default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); Edgar, 2023 WL
6520357, at *1. Because Defendant Serene has been repeatedly ordered to secure legal
representation and has failed to do so, the undersigned concludes that no less drastic
remedy is sufficient and that default judgment is proper. Edgar, 2023 WL 6520357, at *1.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that default
judgment be entered against Defendant Serene Home Health Services, LLC, pursuant to
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge

2

Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation (Report), that party may,
within fourteen (14) days of the date that this Report was filed, file and serve written
objections to specific findings or recommendations along with supporting authority for
the objection(s). Responses to objections are due ten days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. A District Judge will then
make a de novo determination of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations
to which objection is made. The District Judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, this Court’s findings or recommendations, 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 advised that a failure to object to the Report will result in a waiver
of a party’s right (1) to have the District Judge review the Report de novo and (2) to
appeal a decision of the District Court adopting the Report. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3