Opinion
Civil Action 9:18-CV-172
04-10-2021
ELDRIDGE NICKSON, ET AL. v. MELENDA COLE, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act against Melenda Cole, Polk County, Kenneth Hammack, Brent Phillips, Anthony Clevenger, Unknown Jenkins, Unknown Skarpa, Unknown Wright and other unidentified defendants.
The above-styled action was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides the following:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
It has been more than 90 days since plaintiffs filed this action, but the plaintiffs have not served defendants Hammack, Phillips, Jenkins, Skarpa, Wright, or the unidentified defendants. Therefore, unless plaintiffs show good cause for failing to effect service, the unserved defendants should be dismissed from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m).
Recommendation
If good cause is not shown by plaintiffs within fourteen days after entry of this Report, the unserved defendants should be dismissed from this action.
Objections
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.
SIGNED.