United States of America v. Sorias Custom Exteriors, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SORIAS CUSTOM EXTERIORS, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-1167
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Complaint against Defendant, Sorias
Custom Exteriors, on October 7, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process over Defendant. (ECF No. 9.) In that
Show Cause Order, the Court acknowledged that Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service signed by
counsel on December 23, 2025, and averring that he had served Defendant via certified mail.
(ECF No. 8.) However, as the Court explained, that attempt at service was deficient because
Plaintiff did not provide service materials to the Clerk for mailing by certified mail as S.D. Ohio
Civ. Rule 4.2(a) requires. (ECF No. 9.)
To date, the only further activity on the docket is Plaintiff’s application for entry of
default (ECF No. 10) against Defendant based on the same Proof of Service (ECF No. 8) that the
Court has already explained does not reflect compliant service of process. Plaintiff’s application
does not acknowledge or respond to the January 21, 2026 Show Cause Order.
Case: 2:25-cv-01167-SDM-CMV Doc #: 11 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Because Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service of
process over Defendant, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 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 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-01167-SDM-CMV Doc #: 11 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>