Demsey et al v. Safeway Moving Systems, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD L. DEMSEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAFEWAY MOVING SYSTEMS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-550
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts claims against, among others, pseudonymous Defendants
identified as “John Doe and/or John Doe Inc. 1–5” and “John Foe and/or John Foe Inc. 1–5”
(collectively, the “Doe Defendants”) (ECF No. 1.) When 90 days elapsed after the Complaint
was filed, the docket did not reflect that Plaintiffs had moved to amend the Complaint to
substitute the real names of the Doe Defendants; nor did it reflect that Plaintiffs had effected
service upon them as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Accordingly, on
February 4, 2026, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiffs 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. 50.)
To date, Plaintiffs have 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 Doe and/or
Case: 2:25-cv-00550-MHW-CMV Doc #: 53 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
John Doe Inc. 1–5 and John Foe and/or John Foe Inc. 1–5 be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process.
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-00550-MHW-CMV Doc #: 53 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>