District Court, S.D. Ohio, 2021

Lige v. Sarcac

Lige v. Sarcac
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Decided October 22, 2021
Lige v. Sarcac

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

KELA M. LIGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 2:21-cv-3436 Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura DR. TIMUR SARCAC, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant Dr. Timur Sarcac on June 9, 2021 (ECF No. 1). On October 1, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. (Show Cause Order, ECF No. 2.)

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service on Defendant. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.