UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ARRINGTON/ROE & CO., INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:22-cv-4479 Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura MERRILEE (STEWART) TURNBULL, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on the Court’s March 30, 2023 Show Cause Order (ECF No. 9). For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Norman L. Fountain Insurance & Assoc., LLC, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The state court docket reflects that Defendant Norman L. Fountain Insurance & Assoc., LLC, was served with the Complaint by the state court Clerk via certified mail on its statutory agent on November 21, 2022, making its answer due on December 19, 2022. Although Norman L. Fountain Insurance & Assoc., LLC, failed to file a timely answer or other response to the Complaint, Plaintiff did not apply for an entry of default from the Clerk pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). On March 30, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the claims against Norman L. Fountain Insurance & Assoc., LLC, should not be dismissed for want of prosecution within fourteen days of the Show Cause Order unless it had filed an application for entry of default in the interim. (ECF No. 9.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order and has not filed an application for entry of default against Norman L. Fountain Insurance & Assoc., LLC. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Norman L. Fountain Insurance & Assoc., LLC, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to

prosecute. 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 District 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 District 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