Opinion
18 Civ. 8471 (LAK)(HBP)
07-31-2019
RAMON SANCHEZ-ROSSI, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
:
TO THE HONORABLE LEWIS A. KAPLAN, United States District Judge,
Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, commenced this action on September 18, 2018. Upon reviewing the docket sheet in March 2019, I discovered that the summons and complaint had never been served on defendants. Accordingly, on March 28, 2019 I issued an Order to Show Cause directing plaintiff to complete service by April 29, 2019 or show cause why service had not been made. My March 28, 2019 Order further provided that "[f]ailure to complete service or to show cause on or before April 29, 2019 will result in the issuance of a Report and Recommendation recommending the dismissal of this action." (Emphasis in orginal.) I subsequently granted an application from plaintiff to extend the time to complete service to May 31, 2019.
To date, there is no indication on the docket sheet that the summons and complaint have been served on any of the defendants nor has plaintiff offered any excuse for his failure to complete service. Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the summons and complaint within the 90-day time limit set by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff parties shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). Such objections and responses thereto) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court with courtesy copies delivered to the Chambers of the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge, 500 Pearl Street, Room 224 0, New York, New York 10007 and to the Chambers of the undersigned, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1670, New York, New York 10007. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Kaplan. FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 57-59 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Dated: New York, New York
July 31, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
/s/_________
HENRY PITMAN
United States Magistrate Judge Copy transmitted to: Counsel for Plaintiff