amended complaint would be futile, and the motion to amend may be denied. 2. The inclusion of “John Doe’’ Defendants violates Rule Uni). Defendants object to the use of five John Doe defendants on the ground that the inclusion of Doe defendants, who also appear in the original complaint, violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m) because they were not served within 120 days of filing. (Doc. 87 at 6.) Defendants are correct. I note at the outset that the time for serving the five Does named in the original complaint has long since passed. Moreover, should Plaintiffs identify any of the Does at a later date, they could not substitute in the named individual, since the Rule 15(c) relation back doctrine does not apply to Does. Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692, 696 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) Thus, any amendment including Doe defendants
holding that a refiled action against a new defendant entity was saved by  100 where there was an identity of interest between the original and later named defendant entities holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding amendments substituting named defendants for a john doe cannot relate back under rule 15c because there was no mistake regarding the john does identity holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement