UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

SHIRLETTA SALES, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-158 

vs. 

I SUPPLY CO., et al., District Judge Walter H. Rice 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

(DOC. 5) BE DENIED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILE 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This civil case is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Doc. 5. Pro se Plaintiff timely filed a memorandum in opposition to 

Defendants motion (doc. 6) and, in conjunction therewith, moved for leave to file an amended 

complaint. Doc. 7. By separate entry, the Court granted pro se Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for 

leave to amend the complaint and directed that pro se Plaintiff’s amended complaint be separately 

filed by the Clerk of Courts. Doc. 9. Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss is directed to pro se 

Plaintiff’s original complaint, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion (doc. 

5) be DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFLIE. See Laning v. Doyle, 

No. 3:14–cv–24, 2014 WL 2805240, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2014) (Rice, J.).

Date: July 16, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman 

 Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 1

 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and 

Recommendation. 
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections 

to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with 

this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if 

served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, 

this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to 

SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the 

deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a 

showing of good cause. 

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected 

to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being 

served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, 

however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended 

to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 

(6th Cir. 1981).