Opinion
1:23-CV-00660-JPC
09-26-2023
PATRICK SEAN O'NEIL, Plaintiff, v. LAKE COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
J. PHILIP CALABRESE, JUDGE.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
JONATHAN D. GREENBERG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for general pretrial supervision and resolution of all non-dispositive motions. (Non-document Order dated May 23, 2023.)
While Plaintiff filed the necessary forms for service by the U.S. Marshals, he failed to file summonses for the four defendants in this case. On May 24, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete the attached summons for each defendant and return the summonses to the Court on or before June 27, 2023. (Doc. No. 6.)
Plaintiff failed to return the summonses to the Court as ordered by June 27, 2023. A person purporting to be a relative of Plaintiff contacted chambers and represented that Plaintiff had sent a filing to the Court weeks ago. Neither the Clerk of Court nor chambers had received any such filing. Therefore, the Court ordered that Plaintiff had until August 30, 2023, to file the required summonses for each defendant. (Doc. No. 7.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to file the summonses by this date would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
To date, the Court has not received the summonses.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) provides that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), “[i]f 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.” Further, in the interest of managing its docket and avoiding unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts and opposing parties, the Court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute. Knoll v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order to file summonses, and in doing so he has failed to actively pursue this litigation to its completion within a reasonable amount of time.
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this document. Failure to file objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the District Court's order. Berkshire v. Beauvais , 928 F.3d 520, 530-31 (6th Cir. 2019).