United States of America v. Sorias Custom Exteriors, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-1167 Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura SORIAS CUSTOM EXTERIORS, LLC, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Complaint against Defendant, Sorias Custom Exteriors, on October 7, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process over Defendant. (ECF No. 9.) In that Show Cause Order, the Court acknowledged that Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service signed by counsel on December 23, 2025, and averring that he had served Defendant via certified mail. (ECF No. 8.) However, as the Court explained, that attempt at service was deficient because Plaintiff did not provide service materials to the Clerk for mailing by certified mail as S.D. Ohio Civ. Rule 4.2(a) requires. (ECF No. 9.)

To date, the only further activity on the docket is Plaintiff’s application for entry of default (ECF No. 10) against Defendant based on the same Proof of Service (ECF No. 8) that the Court has already explained does not reflect compliant service of process. Plaintiff’s application does not acknowledge or respond to the January 21, 2026 Show Cause Order.

Because Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service of process over Defendant, it is RECOMMENDED that this action 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 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. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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