Opinion
Civil Action No. 98-5498 (NHP).
May 28, 1999
Mr. Larry Wall, Jersey City, N.J., Plaintiff Pro Se.
LETTER ORDER ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH CLERK OF THE COURT
Dear Mr. Wall:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges to dismiss pro se plaintiff Larry Wall's Complaint without prejudice and without costs. For the reasons stated herein, Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges' Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED and pro se plaintiff Larry Wall's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS.
DISCUSSION
This Court shall now make a de novo determination whether to accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings made by the Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 40D. The United States Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a Magistrate makes a finding or ruling on a motion or an issue, his determination should become that of the district court unless specific objection is filed within a reasonable time." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-51 (1985).
In determining whether it is appropriate to dismiss pro se plaintiff Larry Wall's ("plaintiff") Complaint without prejudice and without costs, this Court finds ample support in the record to sustain Judge Hedges' findings made pursuant to the analysis set forth in the Report and Recommendation and the discussion herein.
Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on December 4, 1998. Since defendants in this matter are agencies and/or officers of agencies of the United States, plaintiff was required to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(2) [ Service Upon the United States, and Its Agencies, Corporations, or Officers]. The record indicates that, despite plaintiff's flippant contention that he has had "dealings with Faith S. Hockberg [sic]," plaintiff has not complied with the substantive requirements of Rule 4(i)(2).
Additionally, a plaintiff must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) [ Time Limit for Service]. As of today's date, plaintiff has not submitted any proof of service pursuant to Rule 4(m). According to the Third Circuit, Rule 4(m), "require[s] a court to extend time if good cause is shown and to allow a court discretion to dismiss or extend time absent a showing of good cause." Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir. 1995). For the reasons stated more particularly in Magistrate Judge Hedges' Report and Recommendation as to plaintiff's litigious nature and familiarity with the court system, this Court finds that good cause does not exist in this matter.
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Hedges' Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED and plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS.