Bone Dry, Inc. v. Delonjay

Full title: BONE DRY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JEFF DELONJAY d/b/a Bone Dry Roofing …

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

Date published: Mar 6, 2019

No. 18-CV-3224 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-CV-3224

03-06-2019

BONE DRY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JEFF DELONJAY d/b/a Bone Dry Roofing & Exteriors, Defendant.

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION :

On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Complaint and paid all filing fees in full. However, Plaintiff has not taken steps to perfect service on Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) directs that a plaintiff must serve a defendant within 90 days of filing of the Complaint. On December 6, 2018, the 90 days for service lapsed.

Plaintiff was reminded of the 90-day rule by this Court's Text Order of December 10, 2018 and advised if service was not perfected, the case was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Status Report (d/e 7) stating that the parties "have reached an agreement in principle, and are in the process of completing a draft settlement agreement". The Status Report requested an additional 60 days to complete service of the Complaint. The extension was granted to February 15, 2019 by Text Order dated December 18, 2018. Service was not completed and nothing was filed by Plaintiff.

By Text Order dated February 20, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report on or before February 25, 2019 and show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.

As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 4(m) and the Court's order of February 20, 2019. The Court recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 4(m).

Plaintiff is advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7^th Cir. 1986). See Local Rule 72.2. ENTER: March 6, 2019

/s/_________

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE