UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

LERLAINE J. SENIOR et al., Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-282-DJH-CHL

PAM TRANSPORT, INC. and JOHN W. HEAVENER, Defendants.

* * * * *

ORDER

The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why their claims against Defendant John W. Heavener should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Docket No. 14) In response, Plaintiffs argued that Heavener had been properly served under Kentucky law, but Heavener maintained (through special appearance) that service was improper.1 (D.N. 15; D.N. 16) The Court referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay for report and recommendation. (D.N. 17) On February 7, 2025, Judge Lindsay issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending (1) that Heavener be deemed properly served and before the Court; (2) that the Court not extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to serve Heavener; and (3) that Heavener answer Plaintiffs’ complaint on or before February 28, 2025. (D.N. 21, PageID.126) No party objected to the report and recommendation. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Heavener moves for clarification as to whether February 28 was the deadline to serve and file his answer; if so, he seeks leave to file the answer out of time. (D.N. 22) Because no party objected to the report and recommendation, the Court may adopt it without review. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Nevertheless, the Court has

1 In the alternative, Plaintiffs requested additional time to properly serve Heavener, or, if necessary, to dismiss him from the lawsuit and amend their complaint. (See D.N. 14) conducted its own review of the record and finds no error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay (D.N. 21) is ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED by reference herein. Defendant John W. Heavener is deemed to have been properly served. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Heavener’s tendered answer (D.N. 22-1) in the record of this matter. It is timely filed. (2) Defendant John W. Heavener’s motion for clarification (D.N. 22) is DENIED as moot. April 9, 2025 4 / David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court