Richard L. Demsey, et al. v. Safeway Moving Systems, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD L. DEMSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-550 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura SAFEWAY MOVING SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant Safeco Insurance Company filed an Answer and Crossclaim against co- Defendants Safeway Moving Systems, Inc., Red Truck Enterprises Corp., Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., and Abilek Jumayev on July 18, 2025 (ECF No. 8). On December 11, 2025, the Court ordered Safeco to show cause within fourteen days why its crossclaims against Red Truck, Wheaton, or Jumayev should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. (ECF No. 37.)

To date, Safeco has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service on Red Truck, Wheaton, or Jumayev. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Safeco’s crossclaims against these three co-Defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE