Robert Berg v. Tribune Media Company et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), briefing consists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 11/16/2017. Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 10/27/2017. (lih)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERT BERG, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Civil Action No. 17-938-VAC-SRF
TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, PETER
M. KERN,BRUCE A. KARSH, CRAIG A. )
JACOBSON, ROSS LEVINSOHN, PETER )
E. MURPHY, LAURA R. WALKER,
SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., )
and SAMSON MERGER SUB INC.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this securities action filed by plaintiff Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint in the above-captioned case was filed on July 12, 2017. (D.I. 1) On October 12,
201 7, the court entered an Order to Show Cause why the above-captioned action should not be
dismissed for plaintiffs failure to serve process within 90 days of filing the complaint, pursuant
to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D.I. 3) Plaintiff failed to respond to the
Order to Show Cause by the October 26, 2017 deadline.
In accordance with the foregoing facts, I recommend the dismissal of the abovecaptioned action.
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(l), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to ten (10)
pages each. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right
to de novo review in the District Court. See Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. Appx. 924, 925 n.1
(3d Cir. 2006); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-?9 (3d Cir. 1987).
The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R. ·
Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court's website,
Dated: October~~ , 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?