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
Defendant Safeco Insurance Company filed an Answer and Crossclaim against co-
Defendants Safeway Moving Systems, Inc., Red Truck Enterprises Corp., Wheaton Van Lines,
Inc., and Abilek Jumayev on July 18, 2025 (ECF No. 8). On December 11, 2025, the Court
ordered Safeco to show cause within fourteen days why its crossclaims against Red Truck,
Wheaton, or Jumayev should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect
service. (ECF No. 37.)
To date, Safeco has not responded to the Show Cause Order or effected service on Red
Truck, Wheaton, or Jumayev. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Safeco’s crossclaims
against these three co-Defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process.
Case: 2:25-cv-00550-MHW-CMV Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/04/26 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-00550-MHW-CMV Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>