WALTER H. RICE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Edward Verhovec ("Verhovec") has filed a complaint in this Court against the City of Trotwood, Ohio ("Trotwood"), and several Trotwood employees, including Trotwood City Manager Michael J. Lucking ("Lucking"), in their individual and official capacities (collectively "Defendants"), arising out of a long-running public records dispute. Verhovec's complaint alleged that Defendants violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution (claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Count I), spoliated evidence and intimidated Verhovec's witnesses (Count II) and committed a civil conspiracy against him (Count III). Doc. #1. On August 28, 2014, Defendants Trotwood and Michael J. Lucking (collectively "Counterclaim-Plaintiffs") filed a timely counterclaim against Verhovec and his former attorneys, William E. Walker, Jr. ("Walker"), R. Paul Cushion II and the R. Paul Cushion, II, Esq., Law Firm (collectively "Counterclaim-Defendants"). Doc. #12. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs alleged that Counterclaim-Defendants violated Title III of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and also raised several Ohio statutory and common law claims. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367.
Pending before the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), are Walker's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. #100, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz's Report and Recommendations on William Walker's Motion for Summary Judgment and Order Granting, if Necessary, Extension of Time to Perfect Service of Process, Doc. #119, and Walker's Objections to the Report and Recommendations. Doc. #123. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs filed a Response to the Report and Recommendations, but made no objections, Doc. #126, and Walker filed a Reply. Doc. #129.
Based upon the reasoning and citations set forth in the Report and Recommendations, as well as upon a thorough de novo review of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations in their entirety, OVERRULES Walker's Objections thereto and OVERRULES Walker's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Magistrate Judge provided the following summary of the relevant procedural history with respect to Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' claims against Walker:
Doc. #119, PAGEID #1017-18.
Walker moved for summary judgment on three grounds, only one of which will be considered by the Court, given his lack of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings on the other two grounds: that because Counterclaim-Plaintiffs had failed to serve him within 120 days of filing their Counterclaim, and had failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve him within that time, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) required the Court to dismiss the Counterclaim. Doc. #116, PAGEID #991-92.
In the Report and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge rejected Walker's argument and noted that, on December 1, 1993, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) was replaced by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and that Rule 4(m) "authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the consequences of an application of this subdivision [i.e., dismissal for failure to serve within 120 days,] even if there is no good cause shown." Doc. #119, PAGEID #1019 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment).
Under the Magistrate Judge Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court's review is limited to findings in the Report and Recommendations for which "timely objections are filed. `Absent compelling reasons, it does not allow parties to raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented to the magistrate [judge].'" Guethlein v. Potter, No. 1:09-cv-451-HJW, 2011 WL 672046, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2011) (Weber, J.) (quoting Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Nor may the Court review any finding to which objections were not made. Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) ("[g]enerally, the failure to file specific objections to a magistrate's report constitutes a waiver of those objections"). Thus, Walker's only objection that is subject to this Court's review is whether the Magistrate Judge erred in extending Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' deadline to perfect service until June 23, 2015, even absent a finding that Counterclaim-Plaintiffs had shown good cause as to why they failed to serve Walker within the 120-day period. Doc. #123, PAGEID #1042-45.
The cases cited by Walker in support of his Objections are inapposite.
Since Osborne was published, there have been no Sixth Circuit rulings that imposed any such limit on a trial court's discretion. Indeed, district courts within the Sixth Circuit have repeatedly emphasized that Rule 4(m) does not require a showing of good cause before a court may extend the time to complete service. See, e.g., Brown v. Mohr, No. 2:13-cv-6, 2015 WL 762813, at *3-4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2015) (Kemp, Mag. J.) (citing Bradford v. Bracken Cty., 767 F.Supp.2d 740, 753 (E.D. Ky. 2011)); Green v. Venatter, No. 2:13-cv-345, 2014 WL 559154, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2014) (Smith, J.); Fulgenzi v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 5:09-cv-1767, 2010 WL 2403377, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 10, 2010).
Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, Walker has been an active participant in the case since at least February 24, 2015, "often filing papers as if he were Verhovec's counsel in this case as he had been in the Public Records case." Doc. #119, PAGEID #1017. Walker is well aware of the underlying facts of this litigation and the content and nature of Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' allegations against him. Thus, there is no risk of unfair surprise to Walker or any other equitable concern that might caution against extending Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' deadline to serve Walker until June 23, 2015.
In his Objections, Walker raises no argument as to why he is entitled to summary judgment, apart from the alleged failure to serve him. As the Court finds that Counterclaim-Plaintiffs timely and effectively served Walker on June 23, 2015, his motion for summary judgment is overruled.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS in full the Report and Recommendations on William Walker's Motion for Summary Judgment and Order Granting, if Necessary, Extension of Time to Perfect Service of Process. The Court OVERRULES Walker's Objections to the Reports and Recommendations and OVERRULES Walker's Motion for Summary Judgment. Counterclaim-Plaintiffs' claims against Walker shall proceed to trial.