From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arant v. J.P. Morgan Chase, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Feb 13, 2014
2:12-CV-1386 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2014)

Opinion

2:12-CV-1386 JCM (GWF)

02-13-2014

FRANK ARANT, Plaintiff(s), v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE, INC., et al., Defendant(s).


ORDER

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley (doc. # 35) advising that plaintiff Frank Arant's complaint be dismissed for lack of proper service. Plaintiff Frank Arant filed objections (doc. # 36) to which defendants responded (doc. # 37).

I. Legal standard

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States magistrate judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); LR IB 3-2(b). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id.

However, the district court need not conduct a hearing to satisfy the statutory requirement that the district court make a "de novo determination." United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980) (observing that there is "nothing in the legislative history of the statute to support the contention that the judge is required to rehear the contested testimony in order to carry out the statutory command to make the required 'determination'").

II. Discussion

Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation advises that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because plaintiff failed to effect proper service upon defendants within 120 days.

Plaintiff admits that he has not properly served defendants, but indicates that he was confused as to the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also states that he would like to amend his complaint, and that he will re-file and properly serve defendants if he is given leave to do so.

Accordingly,

After having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the report objected to,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation (doc. # 35) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff Frank Arant's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. # 25) is DENIED as moot.

__________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Arant v. J.P. Morgan Chase, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Feb 13, 2014
2:12-CV-1386 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2014)
Case details for

Arant v. J.P. Morgan Chase, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK ARANT, Plaintiff(s), v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE, INC., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 13, 2014

Citations

2:12-CV-1386 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2014)