1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

HOUSTON BYRD, JR.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

 

JP MORGAN CHASE, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cv-506 

 

Judge Graham 

Magistrate Judge Vascura 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s objections (ECF Nos. 14 and 

16) to the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Vascura on August 30, 2018. 

(ECF No. 12). Magistrate Judge Vascura recommended that this action be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF Nos. 

14 and 16) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Vascura 

on August 30, 2018. (ECF No. 12). 

I. Standard of Review 

Plaintiff timely filed his objections on September 4 and September 5, 2018. If a party 

objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon 

review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). As required by 28 
2 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court will make a de novo review of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which Plaintiff specifically objects. 

II. Plaintiffs’ Objections 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, objected to the Report and Recommendation arguing that by 

mailing the summons and complaint to the Defendant via certified mail and confirming their 

delivery, this constituted evidence of valid service of process pursuant to a source he cites. Thus, 

according to Plaintiff, he has effected service on the Defendant. 

III. Discussion 

Plaintiff’s objections are noted, but as noted by Magistrate Judge Vascura, such service by 

the Plaintiff does not comport with either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or the Southern District 

of Ohio rules, and it is these rules that bind this Court. As outlined by Magistrate Judge Vascura, 

“the summons Plaintiff attempted to serve on Defendant is neither signed by the Clerk nor bears 

the Court’s seal as required by Rule 4(a)(1).” (ECF No. 12 at 1–2). Furthermore, “although Ohio 

law contemplates service of process through certified or express mail, such mailing must be 

completed through the Clerk.” (Id. at 2 citing Ohio Civ. R. 4.1; S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 4.2). Therefore, 

by not taking the steps set forth by either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or the Southern District 

of Ohio rules, Plaintiff has not completed effective service, and it is appropriate that this action be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to timely effect 

service. 

IV. Conclusion 

Upon de novo review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF Nos. 14 and 

16) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12). Therefore, this case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to timely 
3 

effect service. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Objection, Request for Findings to Court’s 

Order dated July 26, 2018, and Recusal (ECF No. 9), Motion for Objection, Request for Findings 

to Court’s Order dated July 5, 2018, August 24, 2018, Show Cause Order and Recusal (ECF No. 

11), Motion for Entry of Default into the Court Record and Default Judgment by the Clerk (ECF 

No. 15), and Motion for Findings (ECF No. 18) are hereby DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ James L. Graham 

 JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 United States District Judge 

DATE: December 13, 2018