1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ADAM CHASTEEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ROD JOHNSON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:12-cv-229 

 Judge Marbley 

Magistrate Judge King 

 

ORDER 

On December 21, 29012, the United States Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants 

Nurse Hoffman, Nurse Landon, Nurse John Doe and the otherwise 

unidentified 2d and 3rd shift captains, Doc. Nos. 76, 79, be granted 

for failure to effect service of process in a timely fashion. Report 

and Recommendation, Doc. No. 82. This matter is now before the Court 

on plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 

84. The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 This case was filed on March 15, 2012. Plaintiff, who is no 

longer incarcerated, has been granted a number of extensions of time 

in which to effect service of process on the defendants. Service was 

due on November 21, 2012. Order, Doc. No. 59. The motions to dismiss 

for failure to effect service of process, Doc. Nos. 76, 79, were filed 

on December 11, 2012 and December 13, 2012, respectively. The 

Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions be granted and that 

plaintiff’s request for yet another extension of time to effect 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 01/09/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

service of process on the remaining defendants be denied, reasoning 

that to do so “would result in continued delay of the proceedings and 

in undue prejudice to the current parties as well as to parties not 

yet served with process – and indeed to the Court and the community at 

large, whose interest in the speedy and expeditious administration of 

justice has already been compromised by plaintiff’s delays in 

effective service of process.” Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 

82, p. 2. 

 In his objections, plaintiff contends that service of process on 

defendants Hoffman and Landon was effective. Although the docket 

initially reflected service of process on these defendants, Doc. Nos. 

67, 69, process was thereafter returned to the Court with the notation 

that service of process had been accepted – not by the defendants 

themselves – but erroneously by staff at the Madison Correctional 

Institution. See Doc. No. 75 (“There is no nurse John Doe at Madison 

Correctional Institution. . .;” “There is no nurse Landon at Madison 

Correctional institution . . .;” “There is no nurse Hoffman at Madison 

Correctional Institution . . .”). Nowhere in the record does it appear 

that these defendants were served with process in accordance with Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4. Plaintiff’s objection in this regard is therefore 

without merit. 

 Plaintiff also asks, once again, for an extension of time in 

which to effect service of process on the unnamed defendants. This 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff has been 

accorded considerable accommodation and flexibility in the matter of 

service of process. The action has now been pending for more than 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 01/09/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

nine (9) months. The Court is unwilling to grant plaintiff yet 

another extension of time in which to effect service of process on any 

defendants who have not yet been served with process. 

 Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are 

DENIED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 82, is ADOPTED AND 

AFFIRMED. The motions to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Nurse 

Hoffman, Nurse Landon, Nurse John Doe and the otherwise unidentified 

2d and 3rd shift captains, Doc. Nos. 76, 79, are GRANTED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marble 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 01/09/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>