Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/24/2015. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KEISHA F. DAVIS,
o/b/o I.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-892-T-33TBM

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the United
States Social Security
Administration,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 9), entered on September 9, 2015,
recommending that this action be dismissed.

As of this date,

there are no objections to the Report and Recommendation, and
the time to file such objections has elapsed.
I.

Background
Plaintiff Keisha F. Davis filed her Complaint against

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the United States
Social Security Administration, on April 4, 2015. (Doc. # 1).
Davis also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which
was granted. (Doc. ## 2, 5). Davis was directed by the Court

1

to complete and return the “Summons in a Civil Case” forms to
the Clerk by May 27, 2015. (Doc. # 5). On July 27, 2015, Davis
was again directed to complete and return the necessary forms
to properly serve the Commissioner. (Doc. # 7). Davis did not
complete the necessary forms. (Doc. # 9). Thus, on August 17,
2015, Davis was ordered to show cause, in writing, on or
before August 28, 2015, why this case should not be dismissed
for failure to effectuate service in a timely manner. (Doc.
# 8). Davis has not filed any response. Furthermore, no
objection

has

been

filed

to

Judge

McCoun’s

Report

and

Recommendation as of the date of this Order.
II.

Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the

findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

Recommendation.

28

the

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge’s

636(b)(1);

Report

and

Williams

v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459
U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there
is

no

requirement

that

a

district

judge

review

factual

findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9
(11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.
U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(C).

The

district
2

judge

reviews

28

legal

conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See
Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir.
1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32
(S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge and
the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, in part, “If a defendant is
not served within 120 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 . . . .” More than 120 days have passed since the
filing of the Complaint and Davis has neither effected service
of process, nor shown cause why such service has not been
made.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 9) is ACCEPTED

and ADOPTED.
(2)

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(3)

The Clerk is directed to close this case.
3

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
24th day of September, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record.

4