Opinion
2:19-CV-423-TLS-JEM
07-21-2021
EDWARD MICHAEL STRAUSS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, JANE DOE, in her official and individual capacity, JILL DOE, in her official and individual capacity, and YOUTUBE LLC Defendants.
ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72-1 [ECF No. 18], filed by Magistrate Judge John E. Martin on February 10, 2021. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff Edward Michael Strauss filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] in which he brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against two unnamed defendants and Defendants United States Postal Service and Youtube LLC. On April 23, 2020, the Court issued an Order, sua sponte, in which it indicated that the Plaintiff had improperly served Defendant United States Postal Service, instructed the Plaintiff on how to serve Defendant United States Postal Service, and granted the Plaintiff until June 15, 2020, to file proposed summons to serve Defendant United States Postal Service. Apr. 23, 2020 Order 2, ECF No. 17. The Court also warned the Plaintiff that his claims against Defendant United States Postal Service may be dismissed if he failed to comply with the April 23, 2020 Order. Id.
On February 10, 2021, Magistrate Judge Martin filed a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] in which he recommends that the Court dismiss the claims against Defendant United States Postal Service in this case without prejudice for lack of service. The Court's review of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), which provides:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”). Judge Martin gave the Plaintiff notice that he had fourteen days to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. As of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff has not filed an objection to Judge Martin's Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds that the Magistrate Judge's proposed disposition is well taken.
Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS, IN WHOLE, the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18]. The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant United States Postal Service in this case without prejudice for lack of service.
SO ORDERED.