Felder v. Ryder Logistics
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson's Final Report and Recommendation 4 and dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 6/19/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
RAYMOND SHERELOCK
FELDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-5315-WSD
RYDER LOGISTICS,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson’s
Final Report and Recommendation [4] (“Final R&R”), which recommends the
action be dismissed without prejudice.
On December 20, 2017, Raymond Sherelock Felder (“Plaintiff”) filed his
Complaint [1] alleging a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ et seq. Plaintiff, however, failed to file
proof of service within ninety days. On April 5, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff
to file proof of service within twenty days or to show good cause as to why he had
not served Defendant Ryder Logistics (“Defendant”). ([3] “April 5th Order”). The
Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file proof of service would result in a
recommendation that his case be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). On
May 8, 2018, with more than twenty days passed, the Magistrate Judge issued his
Final R&R finding that Plaintiff failed to properly serve Defendant and obey the
Court’s April 5th Order.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Where, as here, no
party filed objections to the Final R&R, the Court reviews the Court reviews it for
plain error.1
1
On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Letter [6] with the Court explaining that
he “did send . . . [D]efendant by two day mail delivery on April 20, 2018[,] and
they signed for it[.] [T]hey should respond within thirty days.” Plaintiff,
nevertheless, failed to file proof of service, and, to the extent Plaintiff’s Letter
constitutes an “objection” to the Final R&R, the Court overrules it.
2
The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (m) (failing to comport with the service
deadline may result in dismissal without prejudice); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R.
41.3(A)(2), N.D. Ga. (“The court may, with or without notice to the parties,
dismiss a civil case for want of prosecution if . . . [a] plaintiff . . . shall, after notice,
. . . fail or refuse to obey a lawful order of the court in the case . . . .”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnsons’
Final Report and Recommendation [4] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2018.
3
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?