Clark v. Parker et al.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CURTIS CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBORAH PARKER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:24-cv-1312
JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff Curtis Clark initiated this action by filing a complaint against
Defendants Deborah Parker, Sandra Clark, and Cathy Jones, alleging that the defendants engaged
in the fraudulent transfer and conveyance of interest in the property located at 3423 Dueber Avenue
SW, Canton, Ohio 44706. 	(ECF No. 1). 	On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed proof of personal
service on Defendant Parker. 	(ECF No. 4). 	Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
Defendants Deborah Parker, Sandra Clark, and Cathy Jones on August 29, 2024. (ECF No. 9).
Defendant Parker filed an answer to the amended complaint. 	(ECF No. 16). 	On September 4,
2024, Defendant Jones was dismissed from this action after the Court granted Plaintiff’s construed
Rule 21 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10; Order [non-document] dated Sept. 4, 2024).
Although more than a year has passed since the filing of this case, Plaintiff has yet to
effectuate service on Defendant Sandra Clark. At an in-person status conference on December 12,
2024, Magistrate Judge Jonathan Greenberg informed Plaintiff that he had until January 2, 2024
to perfect service on Defendant Clark. 	(ECF No. 33). 	At a status conference on July 9, 2025,
Plaintiff informed Magistrate Judge Jennifer Armstrong that he still had not effectuated service
upon Defendant Clark. (Minutes of proceedings [non-document] dated July 9, 2025). Magistrate
Case: 5:24-cv-01312-CEF Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/13/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Judge Armstong ordered Plaintiff to either file valid proof of service upon Defendant Clark or
show cause why this case should not be dismissed against her pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) by
August 7, 2025. (Id.).
On August 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Armstong issued an order that: (i) took notice of
Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the July 9, 2025 Order; and (ii) warned Plaintiff that “failure to
comply with the July 9, 2025 Order on or before August 26, 2025 will result in a recommendation
that 	the 	case 	against 	Ms. 	Clark 	should 	be 	dismissed 	without 	further 	notice.” 	(Order
[non-document] dated Aug. 12, 2025). 	On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a sworn declaration
stating that he and his former counsel had made several attempts to serve Defendant Clark, which
included hiring a local process server, but all attempts had been unsuccessful. 	(ECF No. 58,
PageID #594). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Clark is evading service and requests alternative
service through publication or email. (Id.).
On October 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge Armstrong issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Clark without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). 	(ECF No. 60). 	Analyzing the record, Magistrate Judge
Armstrong found that Plaintiff “has not shown reasonable, diligent efforts to timely effect service
on Ms. Clark.” (Id. at PageID #611). The R&R provides the following analysis:
It is true that the Clerk of Court attempted to serve Ms. Clark by certified mail in
December 2024. (ECF No. 50). 	Mr. Clark also avers that his prior counsel
attempted to serve Ms. Clark through unspecified means on “several occasions”
and that Mr. Clark himself hired a process server. (ECF No. 58). However, Mr.
Clark provides no details whatsoever regarding those service efforts, including
when they occurred, what methods his counsel employed, why service was
unsuccessful, and whether Mr. Clark has made any recent service efforts. Given
the paucity of information regarding Mr. Clark’s attempts at service, I cannot
conclude that he has shown good cause for his failure to serve Ms. Clark.
Case: 5:24-cv-01312-CEF Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/13/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
(Id.). Weighing the relevant factors for extending the time for service in the absence of good cause,
the Magistrate Judge concluded that the factors weighed against granting another extension and
dismissal without prejudice was warranted. (Id. at PageID #612–13).
Addressing the request for alternative service, Judge Armstrong found that: (i) service by
email was not permitted under Ohio law; and (ii) as for service by publication, Plaintiff had not
met his burden under Rule 4(m) or Ohio Civ. R. 4.4 of demonstrating that service of process could
not be perfected by traditional means. (Id. at PageID #613–15). The R&R also gave the parties
notice of the 14-day deadline for filing objections.1 (Id. at PageID #616–17). The notice warned
the parties that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in the forfeiture or
waiver of the right to raise the issue on appeal either to the district judge or in a subsequent appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals[.]” (Id. at PageID #616). The deadline has passed and no
objections have been filed.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R&R to which the parties have objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a R&R without further review. See Peretz
v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141–42 (1985).
There being no objections, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Armstrong’s R&R (ECF
No. 60) and incorporates it fully herein by reference. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Sandra
Clark are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R within 14 days after
service.
Case: 5:24-cv-01312-CEF Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/13/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 13, 2025
____________________________________
CHARLES E. FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 5:24-cv-01312-CEF Doc #: 61 Filed: 11/13/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>