UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

MARISOL BELTRAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:24-cv-3238 Judge Algenon L. Marbley Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura DIRECT RECONDITIONING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3), which was filed in state court on May 15 2024 and was removed to this Court on June 17, 2024, asserts claims against, among others, AAG-OHIO, LLC d/b/a Columbus Fair Auto Auction (“AAG-OHIO”). On September 17, 2024, because the docket did not reflect that Plaintiff had effected service of process over AAG-OHIO as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why the Court should not dismiss this action as to AAG-OHIO without prejudice for failure to effect service, and why the Court should allow an extension of time to effect service. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service of process over AAG-OHIO. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against OHIO-AAG be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 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 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