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 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, filed this action on March 

15, 2012; the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint, combined, 

assert claims against 28 defendants. The action has been marked by 

plaintiff’s repeated attempts to avoid the expense and inconvenience 

of effecting service of process on each of the defendants. See, e.g., 

Motion for Special Service of Process, Doc. No. 19; Motion to Amend 

Complaint, Doc. No. 29. Plaintiff has been granted a number of 

extensions of time in which to take all action that would permit the 

United States Marshals Service to effect service of process, see, 

e.g., Order, Doc. No.39; Order, Doc. No. 52, most recently to 

November 21, 2012, Order, Doc. No. 59. Plaintiff was warned that 

there would be no further extension of that date and that his failure 

to demonstrate effective service of process on all remaining 

defendants would result in the dismissal of his claims against any 

unserved defendant. Id. at 4. The docket reflects that service of 

process has not been completed on defendants Nurse Jane Doe, Nurse 

Landon, and Nurse Hoffman. Doc. No. 75. Two other defendants 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 82 Filed: 12/21/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

referred to in the original Complaint or Amended Complaint only by 

their work shift and position have also not been served with process. 

The Ohio Attorney General, making a special appearance on behalf of 

these persons, has moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them. 

State of Ohio’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Against 

Captain John Doe (Second Shift) MaCI; Captain John Doe, (Third Shift) 

MaCI; Nurse Hoffman; Nurse John Doe; and Nurse Landon for 

Insufficient Service of Process, Doc. No. 76; Amended Motion to 

Dismiss, Doc. No. 79. 

In response, plaintiff asks for yet another extension of time, 

until February 15, 2013, to effect service of process on the remaining 

named defendants; he asks that the claims against the remaining Doe 

defendants remain pending discovery of their identities and subsequent 

service. Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition to the State of Ohio’s 

Motion to Dismiss Defendants for Insufficient Service of Process, Doc. 

No. 80. 

 This case has now been pending for more than nine (9) months and 

service of process has not yet been completed on certain defendants. 

To grant plaintiff yet another extension 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. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the State of Ohio’s Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Against Captain John Doe (Second Shift) 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 82 Filed: 12/21/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

MaCI; Captain John Doe, (Third Shift) MaCI; Nurse Hoffman; Nurse 

John Doe; and Nurse Landon for Insufficient Service of Process, Doc. 

No. 76 and these defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 79, 

be GRANTED. 

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report 

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file 

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part 

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must 

be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy 

thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to 

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to 

de novo review by the District Judge and 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); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

December 21, 2012 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 82 Filed: 12/21/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>