Opinion
No. 3:16-CV-0544-K-BF
07-19-2016
FRANKIE N. MORGAN and ANGELA MORGAN-LYLES Plaintiffs, v. HARMONY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HARMONY SCHOOL OF NATURE AND ATHLETICS, HARMONY SCHOOL OF NATURE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL, and ERIC G. RANSLEBEN, Defendants.
FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-styled case was referred by the District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. See New Case Notes [D.E. 1]. The Court's records reflect that this case was filed on February 26, 2016 and that service of summons and complaint has not been made on the named Defendants in this case. See Docket.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service must be completed within 90 days of a case being filed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). That placed the deadline for completion of service on or about May 26, 2016. See id. That deadline has long since passed. This Court put the plaintiffs on notice that if they did not complete service on the defendants by July 18, 2016, a recommendation for this case to be dismissed would be made to the District Court. Order [D.E. 5]. The July deadline has also come and gone, but the defendants remain unserved. See Docket. The plaintiffs have also failed to make any showing of good cause for why they have not timely served the defendants. See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m).
RECOMMENDATION
Because paintiffs have not served the defendants within the time period provided, and good cause has not been shown for such failure, the undersigned recommends that plaintiffs case be DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, July 19, 2016.
/s/_________
PAUL D. STICKNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must serve and file written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).