UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ANNA MARIE BAISDEN, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-480 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura THE TJX COMPANIES, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on the Court’s September 3, 2025 Show Cause Order (ECF No. 14). For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against defendants identified as “John/Jane Does #1- 25” (“the Doe Defendants”) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service. Plaintiff asserted claims against the Doe Defendants but never identified them by name or served them with the summons and Complaint. On September 3, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why her claims against the Doe Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failing to effect service, and why the Court should allow Plaintiff additional time to effect service. (ECF No. 14.) To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to that Show Cause Order, sought to amend the Complaint to identify the Doe Defendants, nor effected service upon them. Accordingly, dismissal without prejudice is warranted. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE