Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-CV-01186
07-19-2022
NATHAN J. PEACHEY ELDER, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE DEBORAH E. CURCILLO, et al., Defendants.
RAMBO, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a pro se civil rights action, initiated upon the filing of the complaint in this matter on July 6, 2021. (Doc. 1). In his complaint, Plaintiff Nathan J. Peachey presents claims against Defendants Judge Deborah E. Curcillo, Department of Human Services, Northern Dauphin Human Services, Heather Reinhard, Stacey Zeigler, the County of Dauphin No. MDJ 12-3-01, Judge Rebecca Jo Margerum, Police Department, Jeffery Goodman, Kelly Abati, District Attorney of Dauphin County, and Ezra Fisher. (Doc. 1, at 2-4). On July 8, 2021, summons were issued by the Court and provided to Plaintiff for service on all Defendants. (Doc. 2). On December 8, 2021, as Plaintiff had failed to serve the summons or the complaint on all Defendants, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause within 10 days as to why service had not been made in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. (Doc. 3, at 1). The time for demonstrating good cause has passed.
Plaintiff has not indicated that he has served summons or the complaint on Defendants. Service of process is not a mere technicality. See Black v. Dublin EMS, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-1340, 2017 WL 1150661, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2017). As such, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the sued Defendants. See Black, 2017 WL 1150661, at *6 (“Without valid service, courts lack jurisdiction and are powerless to enter judgement against a defendant.”) Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the instant action be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over the named Defendants, and that the case be closed.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated July 19, 2022. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.