Hora v Perry Township et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
FRANK J. HORA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 3:22-cv-326
vs.
PERRY TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants. 	Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
(Settlement)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF FRANK J. HORA’S PRO SE UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO REOPEN THIS ACTION DUE TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES (Doc. No. 51);
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE REQUEST TO RECUSE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROLINE H. GENTRY FROM THIS CASE (Doc. No. 59); (3)
REFERRING THIS CASE TO JUDGE GENTRY FOR A MEDIATION CONFERENCE;
(4) REQUIRING JUDGE GENTRY TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AS NECESSARY; AND (5) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND SUBJECT TO RENEWAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 33, 34)
______________________________________________________________________________
For good cause shown, and in the absence of opposition, Plaintiff Frank J. Hora’s pro se1
unopposed motion to reopen this action due to settlement issues is GRANTED. Doc. No. 51. The
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s pro se request to recuse United States Magistrate Judge Caroline H.
Gentry from this case. Doc. No. 59. The Court REFERS this case to Judge Gentry for a mediation
conference to determine:
1. 	Did the parties settle;
2. 	Whether there was an enforceable settlement agreement;
3. 	If there was an enforceable agreement, whether sanctions should be imposed for failure
to satisfy the terms of the agreement; and
1 As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s documents and allegations are liberally construed in his favor. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case: 3:22-cv-00326-MJN-PBS Doc #: 61 Filed: 01/16/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4. 	Whether Plaintiff Tukens LLC’s lack of counsel impacts the validity of the settlement
agreement.
Judge Gentry shall issue an Order or Report and Recommendation, as necessary. Finally, given
this referral, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO RENEWAL
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 33, 34.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 16, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:22-cv-00326-MJN-PBS Doc #: 61 Filed: 01/16/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>