Asare v. Sessions, No. 2:2017cv00405 - Document 12 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 9 the Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/3/18. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Asare v. Sessions Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Angelyna Asare, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:17-cv-405 Jefferson B. Sessions, Judge Michael H. Watson Defendant. Magistrate Judge Jolson OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff sued Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions ("Defendant") on May 11, 2017. EOF No. 1. On August 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service. EOF No. 4. Plaintiff responded on September 11, 2017, stating that she erroneously believed the Clerk would serve Defendant but that she would complete service as quickly as possible. EOF No. 5. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension until October 4, 2017, to complete service. EOF No. 6. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "Proof of service by Mail," EOF No. 7, which stated that Plaintiff had mailed the relevant documents to Defendant via United States Postal Service Priority Mall. On October 5, 2017, the Court informed Plaintiffthat service via priority mail was insufficient and granted Plaintiff an additional fourteen-day extension to complete service. ECF No. 8. After Plaintiff failed to perfect service within that period, the Magistrate Judge Dockets.Justia.com issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 9. Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued the R&R pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Pursuant to that rule, the undersigned must determine de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The undersigned may accept, reject, or modify the R&R, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with Instructions. Id. Plaintiff objects to the R&R but does not point to any legal error In the R&R. ECF No. 10. Instead, she provides a list of reasons why she believes the case should proceed on the merits Including that Plaintiffs failure to serve the Complaint was not Intentional delay. However, there Is still no Indication on the docket that Plaintiff has executed service upon Defendant In a manner that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffwas given several opportunities Over the course of multiple months to serve Defendant. Upon de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failure to complete service warrants dismissal. Plaintiffs objection Is OVERRULED, and the R&R Is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. This case Is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.