Opinion
Case No. 2:05 CV 5.
February 7, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 3, 2005, the plaintiff filed his complaint in this case. On March 18, 2005, he filed an amended complaint, but did not effectuate service on the defendants. On August 3, 2005, the clerk of court notified the plaintiff that if no action was taken by the plaintiff by August 18, 2005, the failure of service would be brought to the attention of the court. On January 17, 2006, this court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by January 31, 2006 why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants. The plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, the court RECOMMENDS that this matter be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have ten (10) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court, with extra copies mailed to the Chambers of the Honorable Philip P. Simon, Judge of the United States District Court, Hammond Division, and the Chambers of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich. The failure to file a timely objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Incorporated, 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corporation, 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); The Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corporation, 882 F.2d 258, 260-61 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir. 1988); Lebovitz v. Miller, 856 F.2d 902, 905 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1988).