From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parker v. Keller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
May 15, 2019
File no: 2:17-CV-102 (W.D. Mich. May. 15, 2019)

Opinion

File no: 2:17-CV-102

05-15-2019

LONNIE L. PARKER #200008, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN KELLER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action on April 22, 2019 (ECF No. 58). The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 58) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trinity Defendant's motion to quash service and Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to quash service is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TKC Holdings, Inc. shall provide the U.S. Marshals with the last known addresses of Defendants Keller and Lovin and notify the Court when it has done so.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to serve the complaint shall be extended ninety (90) days after TKC Holdings, Inc. has notified the Court that it has provided the information to the U.S. Marshals. Date: May 15, 2019

/s/ Robert J. Jonker

ROBERT J. JONKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Parker v. Keller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
May 15, 2019
File no: 2:17-CV-102 (W.D. Mich. May. 15, 2019)
Case details for

Parker v. Keller

Case Details

Full title:LONNIE L. PARKER #200008, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN KELLER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: May 15, 2019

Citations

File no: 2:17-CV-102 (W.D. Mich. May. 15, 2019)

Citing Cases

Mincy v. Hamilton Cnty. Justice Ctr.

Although a district court is not obligated to actively seek out the name or address of a defendant so that…