Opinion
Civil Action 3:23-CV-00742
09-20-2023
MARIA R. RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. MARVIN VASQUEZ, Defendant.
MARIANI, J
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Maria R. Rodriquez Hernandez initiated this action upon the filing of the complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 26, 2023, against Defendant Marvin Vasquez. (Doc. 1). This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that took place in Pocono Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). On the same day, the summons were issued by the Court and provided to Plaintiff Hernandez for service on Defendant. (Doc. 2). On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff Hernandez filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 4). On May 5, 2023, this action was electronically transferred to the Middle District. (Doc. 6).
On August 23, 2023, the Court noted that no proof of service of the summons or the complaint has been filed, and directed Plaintiff Hernandez to show good cause, on or before September 4, 2023, as to why service has not been made in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 7); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. The time for demonstrating good cause has passed.
Plaintiff Hernandez has not indicated that she has served summons or the complaint on Defendant Vasquez. 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 Defendant Vasquez. 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 Defendant Vasquez, and that the Clerk of Court CLOSE this action.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated September 20, 2023. 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.