UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES VINCENT ASHFORD, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-67 Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura STATE OF OHIO, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on the Court’s August 28, 2025 Show Cause Order (ECF No. 20). For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Captain Teuge be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service. Plaintiff, an Ohio inmate who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed his Complaint on January 24, 2025, against the State of Ohio, several state and local agencies/subdivisions, and several individual employees of the Warren Correctional Institution. (ECF No. 1.) After screening Plaintiff’s original and Amended Complaints under

(e)(2) and 1915A(b), the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims apart from those against Defendant Captain Teuge. (ECF Nos. 13, 17.) Plaintiff attempted to obtain service of the Complaint over Defendant Teuge through the U.S. Marshal several times, but each attempt failed because he did not properly complete the required forms or submit all the necessary documents. On multiple occasions, the Court explained these deficiencies and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to correct them or pursue service through other methods permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. (See ECF No. 12, 14, 17.) But Plaintiff did not make the necessary corrections. Indeed, Plaintiff’s most recent submission of forms, submitted August 4, 2025, were again deficient because he did not include

his own name in required sections or sign the U.S. Marshal service form. (See ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff’s extended deadline to effect service of process over Defendant Teuge expired on August 18, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) Ten days later, the Court issued its Show Cause Order ordering Plaintiff to show cause why his claims against Defendant Teague should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service and why the Court should allow him more time to effect service. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond to that Show Cause Order. To date, however, Plaintiff has not responded to that Show Cause Order or effected service of process over Defendant Teuge as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Teuge 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