IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NORMAN V. WHITESIDE, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-1036 

 Judge Michael H. Watson 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

TRAYCE THALHEIMER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint in this action on January 16, 2018. (ECF Nos. 6, 

8.) On April 17, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff show cause why the action should not be 

dismissed for failure to effect service of process as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m) and why an extension of time to effect service should be allowed. (ECF No. 11.) Upon 

Plaintiff’s response and request for an extension of time (ECF No. 12), the Court granted a fortyfive-day extension of time until June 21, 2018, in which to effect service of process. (ECF No. 

13.) 

When Plaintiff did not complete service of process as to Defendants Michael Sheets, 

Kenny Sexton, Karla Williams, and Michael Jackson by June 21, 2018, the Court issued a Show 

Cause Order on June 29, 2018, ordering Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen (14) days why 

the claims against these four Defendants should not be dismissed and why an extension of time 

to effect service of process should be allowed. (ECF No. 20.) To date, Plaintiff has not 

responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court 
2 

dismiss the claims against Defendants Michael Sheets, Kenny Sexton, Karla Williams, and 

Michael Jackson without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of 

process. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

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 in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 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. 

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

The parties are specifically advised that the 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 

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat=l Latex 

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district 

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation 

omitted)). 
3 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: July 26, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE