Wagner v. Petrohio, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD WAGNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETROHIO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-1002
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants Petrohio, LLC, and ARP Hospitality LLC
on September 9, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) When Plaintiff’s 90-day deadline to effect service passed
without Plaintiff having filed evidence of service of process over Defendant ARP as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court ordered Plaintiff on December 12, 2025, to
show cause within fourteen days why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
ARP without prejudice for failure to effect service, and why the Court should allow an extension
of time to effect service. (Show Cause Order, ECF No. 8.)
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service on ARP.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant ARP Hospitality
LLC be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of
process.
Case: 2:25-cv-01002-ALM-CMV Doc #: 9 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-01002-ALM-CMV Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/02/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>