Frank J. Hora, et al. v. Perry Township, Ohio, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON FRANK J. HORA, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:22-cv-326 vs. PERRY TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendants. Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry (Settlement) ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF FRANK J. HORA’S PRO SE UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REOPEN THIS ACTION DUE TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES (Doc. No. 51); (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE REQUEST TO RECUSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROLINE H. GENTRY FROM THIS CASE (Doc. No. 59); (3) REFERRING THIS CASE TO JUDGE GENTRY FOR A MEDIATION CONFERENCE; (4) REQUIRING JUDGE GENTRY TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AS NECESSARY; AND (5) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO RENEWAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 33, 34) ______________________________________________________________________________ For good cause shown, and in the absence of opposition, Plaintiff Frank J. Hora’s pro se1 unopposed motion to reopen this action due to settlement issues is GRANTED. Doc. No. 51. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s pro se request to recuse United States Magistrate Judge Caroline H.

Gentry from this case. Doc. No. 59. The Court REFERS this case to Judge Gentry for a mediation conference to determine: 1. Did the parties settle; 2. Whether there was an enforceable settlement agreement; 3. If there was an enforceable agreement, whether sanctions should be imposed for failure to satisfy the terms of the agreement; and

1 As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s documents and allegations are liberally construed in his favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).

4. Whether Plaintiff Tukens LLC’s lack of counsel impacts the validity of the settlement agreement.

Judge Gentry shall issue an Order or Report and Recommendation, as necessary. Finally, given this referral, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO RENEWAL Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 33, 34.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 16, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge