UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JANNINY DASILVA,

Plaintiff, Civil Action 2:19-cv-5282 Judge Sarah D. Morrison v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

CITY OF COLUMBUS OH, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 15, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice against, inter alia, Defendant Rhiannon Stewart (“Stewart”) for failure to effect service and why the Court should allow an extension of time to effect service. (ECF No. 17.) For good cause shown, the Court granted Plaintiff’s oral motion for an extension of time to effect service and ordered Plaintiff to effect service over Stewart by June 29, 2020. (ECF No. 20.) To date, Plaintiff has not made proof of service to the Court as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l). Plaintiff was previously cautioned that failure to perfect service over Stewart would result in this action being dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 17.) Further, Plaintiff was ordered to effect service over Defendant by June 29, 2020 (ECF No. 20), but has yet to submit proof of service to the Court. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that all claims against Stewart 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.

(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,

(1985); United

States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981).

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE