Kadire v. RV Retailer Texas II, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
JAYCE K. KADIRE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RV RETAILER TEXAS II, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00277
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 4, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by December 23,
2025 why his claims against Defendants RV Retailer Texas II, LLC and Airstream, Inc.
should not be dismissed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Show
Cause Order, Doc. No. 5.) For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants RV Retailer Texas II, LLC and
Airstream, Inc. on August 15, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). The Court subsequently ordered
Plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to effect
timely service. (Show Cause Order, Doc, No. 5.) The Court explained that the ninety-day
time limit for service specified by Rule 4(m) had passed and that Plaintiff had not timely
perfected service on Defendants. (Id. at PageID 16.) The Court further explained that
pursuant to Rule 4(m):
Case: 3:25-cv-00277-MJN-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/02/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the
court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service
be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for
the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate
period.
(Id. at PageID 16 (emphasis added).) The Court also cautioned Plaintiff: “Failure
to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants RV Retailer Texas II, LLC and Airstream, Inc. be
dismissed without prejudice.” (Id. at PageID 17 (emphasis in original).)
Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the Show Cause Order, and
the deadline for doing so has passed. Under these circumstances, sua sponte
dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) is appropriate. The
undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00277-MJN-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/02/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Procedure on Objections
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to
SEVENTEEN days if this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed
in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the
Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. If the Report is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at
an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems
sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to
another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on
appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 3:25-cv-00277-MJN-CHG Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/02/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>