The Scotts Company LLC v. Acronym Media, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACRONYM MEDIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-501
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 4) asserts claims against, among others, “John Does #1–
#5” (the “Doe Defendants”). When 90 days elapsed after the Complaint was filed, the docket did
not reflect that Plaintiff had moved to amend the Complaint to substitute the real names of the
Doe Defendants; nor did it reflect that Plaintiff had effected service upon them as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Accordingly, on December 12, 2025, this Court issued an
order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the Doe Defendants
without prejudice and why the Court should allow an extension of time to effect service. (ECF
No. 29.)
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order, sought leave to amend the
Complaint to substitute the real names of the Doe Defendants, or effected service on the Doe
Defendants. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against John Does #1–#5
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect
service of process.
Case: 2:25-cv-00501-SDM-CMV Doc #: 33 Filed: 01/02/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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 District 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 District 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
Case: 2:25-cv-00501-SDM-CMV Doc #: 33 Filed: 01/02/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>