Opinion
Court File No. 18-cv-570 (JRT/LIB)
09-18-2018
Anne Mullen, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Desiderio Ramos, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon the routine supervision of the cases that pend before the Court, pursuant to a general assignment made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636.
On February 28, 2018, Plaintiffs initiated the present case by filing their Complaint. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]).
On July 13, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order, [Docket No. 4], observing that more than 90 days had passed since Plaintiffs had commenced the present action, and Plaintiffs had not provided proof that they had served a summons and a copy of the Complaint on Defendants, nor had they informed the Court of any ongoing or unsuccessful attempts at service of Defendants. (Order [Docket No. 4]).
Accordingly, the undersigned instructs Plaintiffs to file, within twenty (20) days of that July 13, 2018, Order, on CM/ECF proof of service or demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve Defendants. (Id.). The undersigned cautioned Plaintiffs that if they failed to comply with these directives, the undersigned would recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to effect proper service and failure to prosecute.
It has now been more than twenty (20) days since the Court's July 13, 2018, Order, and Plaintiffs have not yet filed on CM/ECF proof of service nor have Plaintiffs advised the Court of any good cause for such failure. In fact, besides the filing of their Complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to take any action in the present case.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to abide by the terms of the Court's July 13, 2018, Order. [Docket No. 4]. Because the Court forewarned Plaintiffs of the potential consequences of failure to abide by the Court's Order, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's July 13, 2018, Order, [Docket No. 4]; for failure to effect proper service; and for lack of prosecution.
Based on the foregoing and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiffs' Complaint, [Docket No. 1], be DISMISSED without prejudice, for Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Court's July 13, 2018, Order, [Docket No. 4]; for failure to effect proper service; and for lack of prosecution. Dated: September 18, 2018
s/Leo I. Brisbois
Leo I. Brisbois
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), "A party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition[.]" A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).