IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

REJOICE KAI LARYEA, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-1052 

 Judge George C. Smith 

 v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Proof of Service, wherein 

she certifies that she has effected service on the United States Attorney for the Southern District 

of Ohio. (ECF No. 13.) On review of Plaintiff’s Proof of Service, it is apparent that she has not 

perfected service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). Rule 4(i) provides the proper 

procedure for effecting service when a United States Officer is sued in his official capacity, 

providing in pertinent part as follows: 

(1) United States. To serve the United States a party must: 

(A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States 

attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United 

States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates 

in a writing filed with the court clerk—or (ii) send a copy of each by registered 

or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office; 

(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General 

of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and 

(C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the 

United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency 

or officer. 
2 

(2) Agency; Corporation; Officer or Employee Sued in an Official Capacity. To 

serve a United States agency or corporation, or a United States officer or employee 

sued only in an official capacity, a party must serve the United States and also send 

a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the 

agency, corporation, officer, or employee. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Here, Plaintiff has delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to the 

Attorney General of the United States, but has not done so via registered or certified mail as 

required by Rules 4(i)(1)(B) and 4(i)(2). Rather, Plaintiff used Priority Mail Express. See Shupe 

v. General Servs. Admin., No. CV-16-335, 2017 WL 6209142, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2017) 

(holding that “Priority Mail Express” to serve the Attorney General “because Rule 4 requires 

‘registered’ or ‘certified’ mail”). Moreover, delivery did not occur until November 5, 2018 (see

ECF No. 13-1), when the Court’s previous order granted a final extension only until October 30, 

2018. (See ECF No. 12.) 

Plaintiff was previously cautioned that failure to perfect service over Defendant would 

result in this action being dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was further advised that no further extensions of time 

will be granted absent a showing of true emergency. (Id.) It is therefore RECOMMENDED

that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to 

timely effect service. 

In addition, based upon the undersigned’s review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears that 

she is attempting to appeal a March 30, 2017 decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”). This Court lacks jurisdiction over such an appeal, which must instead be brought 

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit within 30 days of the BIA’s 

decision. See Wajda v. Holder, 727 F.3d 457, 461 (6th Cir. 2013); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Thus, 

Plaintiff is advised that even if she were to properly effect service, this action will likely be 
3 

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(h)(3) for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. 

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). 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

 CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE