IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

James Jerome Royster, :

 Plaintiff, :

 v. : Case No. 11-cv-1163

Gary Mohr, et al., : JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

 Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, James Jerome Royster, a state prisoner confined

at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution (“CCI”), filed this

action against director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction (“ODRC”) Gary Mohr, warden Norm Robinson, CCI

health care administrator Alice Ault, and physician Dr. Williams. 

On May 31, 2013, the Court granted the motion for judgment on the

pleadings filed by Defendants Mohr, Robinson, and Ault. In the

May 31, 2013 Order, the Court also held that Mr. Royster had

failed to serve the remaining Defendant, Dr. Williams, and

granted Plaintiff a twenty-eight day extension of time to serve

him. 

Without proper service on Dr. Williams, this Court may not

exercise personal jurisdiction over him. See Elkins v. Summit

County, No. 5:06-CV-3004, 2008 WL 622038, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar.

5, 2008) (citing Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing,

Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides

that when service is not made within the required time, this

Court is to either “dismiss the action without prejudice against

that defendant” or “order that service be made within a specified

time.” The Court pursued the latter route, ordering that service

be made within 28 days, and there is no record of Plaintiff

complying with that order. 

Case: 2:11-cv-01163-PCE-TPK Doc #: 36 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is

recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice

against Defendant Williams. 

It is also recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of Prosecution (Docket No. 35) be denied as moot. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen 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).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01163-PCE-TPK Doc #: 36 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>