United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
complaint in this matter was filed on January 29, 2018
against BREC and Dan M. Scheuermann claiming discrimination.
In the complaint, plaintiff states that Attorney Dan M.
Scheuermann filed a claim for him with the EEOC that was not
true. However, plaintiff did not include a copy of the
submission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). Plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee
when plaintiff filed the complaint on January 29, 2018.
However, plaintiff did not submit summons and addresses for
the defendants when plaintiff submitted his complaint. The
Clerk informed plaintiff when he filed the complaint that
plaintiff is responsible for submitting the summons and
addresses for the defendants and for service on the
not complied with those instructions, on February 28, 2018
the undersigned ordered Plaintiff, by March 19, 2018, to
submit the summons and addresses for the defendants in order
for the Clerk to issue process to the defendants. (R. Doc.
2). Plaintiff was reminded that he is responsible for service
of summons and complaint on the defendants. Plaintiff filed a
response on March 15, 2018 (R. Doc. 3) in which he provides
addresses for the defendants, but the Clerk notified the
Court that as of June 14, 2018, plaintiff had not submitted
was then ordered to show cause, in writing, why his claims
asserted against the defendants should not be dismissed
because of his failure to submit summons for the defendants
and serve those defendants within the time allowed by
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4(m). (R. Doc. 4). The deadline for
Plaintiff to make a submission to the Court was on or before
June 28, 2018.
provided no explanation to the Court as to why he had not
timely made service in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Plaintiff did, however, on June 22, 2018,
submit summons to the Clerk's Office which were issued
that same day.
the summons have been issued, Plaintiff has still failed to
file proof of service into the record. On July 19, 2018, the
Court issued an order granting Plaintiff an extension of 21
days from the date of the order to file proof of service into
the record. The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to do
so would result in a recommendation that this matter be
dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure
to serve defendant(s) within the time allowed.
4(m) provides that “if 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.”
was specifically put on notice on June 21, 2018, that
“a failure to file a written response to this Order
within the time allowed may result in the dismissal of his
claims against the defendants without further notice from the
Court.” In addition, on July 19, 2018, Plaintiff was
informed that failure to file proof of service into the
record would result in a recommendation that this matter be
dismissed, without prejudice, due to failure to serve within
the time allowed.
the date of this report and recommendation, Plaintiff has
failed to submit any proof of service and failed to make any
response to the undersigned's show cause order explaining
why he has failed to comply with Rule 4(m).
Rule 41(b)(1)(A) provides that a civil action may be
dismissed by the court for lack of prosecution “[w]here
no service of process has been made within 120 days after
filing of the complaint.” It has now been over 190 days
since the filing of the complaint and no service of process