Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-CV-155-CHB
03-04-2024
SHILEKA P. HILL, Plaintiff, v. “SHIFT COMMAND MILLS,” et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
CLARIA HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF KENTUCKY
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith's Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”). [R. 21]. Judge Smith issued her Recommendation after a periodic review of this case, which was referred to Judge Smith for discovery and pretrial management, including preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on any dispositive motions. Id. at 1. Having reviewed the record, Judge Smith recommended that Defendant Officer Jane Doe be dismissed as a named party to this action. Id. No party has filed objections to the Recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. For the reasons that follow, the Court will adopt Judge Smith's Recommendation and dismiss Hill's claims against Officer Jane Doe.
On May 19, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Shileka Hill, filed this action alleging that multiple Defendants violated her civil rights when she was confined at the Fayette County Detention Center (“FCDC”) in Lexington, Kentucky. See generally [R. 1]. This Court conducted a preliminary review of the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and directed Hill to complete the E.D. Ky. 520 Civil Rights Complaint Form and file it with this Court to become the sole operative pleading in this case. [R. 8]. On June 16, 2023, Hill filed an Amended Complaint identifying Shift Command Mills, Sgt. Mondelli, Sgt. Quinette, and on unknown female officer (“Officer Jane Doe”) as Defendants. [R. 9]. On October 31, 2023, the Court conducted another preliminary review of the Amended Complaint and found that Hill's Eighth Amendment claims were sufficient to require a response from Mills and Officer Jane Doe but dismissed the remaining claims. [R. 14]. At that time, the Court informed Hill that it was her “initial responsibility to identify the defendants with sufficient particularity for the marshals to attempt service” and that if she failed to identify and serve Officer Jane Doe within ninety days from the date of the Order, “her claims against Officer Jane Doe shall be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” Id. at 4, 8.
More than ninety days have since passed, and Hill has filed nothing in the record concerning the identity or service of Defendant Jane Doe. Judge Smith therefore recommended that Hill's claims against Officer Jane Doe be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). [R. 21, p. 2]. Magistrate Judge Smith's Recommendation advised the parties that objections must be filed within fourteen days. See id. That period has since passed with no objections having been filed. When a party timely objects, the Court reviews de novo only those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court may adopt without review any portion of the report to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). On review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, when no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate judge's recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record and agrees with Magistrate Judge Smith's Recommendation to dismiss Defendant Officer Jane Doe from this action without prejudice. The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Smith's Report and Recommendation [R. 21] is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff Shileka P. Hill's claims against Defendant Officer Jane Doe are DISMISSED without prejudice.