Fidelity Deposit Company of Maryland v. Amaazz Construction Group, LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION FIDELITY DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff, Case Number 2:21-cv-4384 v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura AMAAZZ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 98.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court direct the Clerk to enter default against Defendants Amaazz Construction Group, LLC f/k/a Amaazz Group, LLC; Amaazz Construction Ohio, LLC; The Knoch Corporation; John A.

Johnson; Suguneswaran S. Suguness; Latha Johnson; and Susheela Suguness (collectively, the “Amaazz Defendants”). (Id.) As the Magistrate Judge explained, on November 3, 2025, the Court ordered Defendants Amaazz Construction Group, LLC, Amaazz Construction Ohio, LLC and The Knoch Corporation to retain new counsel and have them enter an appearance and ordered Defendants John A. Johnson, Suguneswaran S. Suguness, Latha Johnson, and Susheela Suguness to clarify their representation status. (ECF No. 95, PageID 1203–04.) The Court allowed 30 days for compliance. (Id.) The Amaazz Defendants did not comply with the Court’s November 3 Order, so, on December 4, 2025, the Court ordered the Amaazz Defendants to show cause within fourteen days why the Clerk should not enter default against them as a sanction. (ECF No. 97.)

The Amaazz Defendants did not comply with the Court’s December 4 Order, either. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court direct the Clerk to enter default against the Amaazz Defendants as a sanction for their failure to comply with the Court’s Orders issued on November 3, 2025, and December 4, 2025. (ECF No. 98.)

Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in the report and recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814–15 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).

The Parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 98, PageID 1213.) No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS (ECF No. 98) the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default against Defendants Amaazz Construction Group, LLC f/k/a Amaazz Group, LLC; Amaazz Construction Ohio, LLC; The Knoch Corporation; John A. Johnson; Suguneswaran S. Suguness; Latha Johnson; and Susheela Suguness.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Amaazz Defendants at the following mailing and email addresses: Amaazz Construction Group, LLC f/k/a Amaazz Group, LLC Amaazz Construction Ohio, LLC The Knoch Corporation C/O Authorized Representative: John A. Johnson [email protected] Suguneswaran S. Suguness and Susheela Suguness 3559 Recurve Circle Sarasota, FL 34240 [email protected] John Johnson and Latha Johnson [email protected] This case remains open.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2/5/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE