BRYANT v. BRENNAN

Filing 13

ORDER ACCEPTS IN PART the report and recommendation 11 of Magistrate Judge Rodovich to the extent that it finds that the docket, as of May 8, 2017, failed to reflect proper service and the Court REJECTS IN PART the report and recommendation 11 to the extent that it recommends dismissal for lack of service. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 5/16/2017. (lhc) Modified on 5/16/2017 remove duplicative language (lhc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
FRESHAWNA M. BRYANT
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16 CV 534

ORDER
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich’s sua
sponte report and recommendation. (DE # 11.) On December 27, 2016, Freshawna Bryant
filed a complaint against Megan J. Brennan, the Postmaster General. (DE # 1.) However,
Bryant did not file documents showing service on the defendant, and on April 17, 2017,
the court filed a notice that a failure to complete service of process was sufficient to
warrant dismissal. (DE # 8.) In response, Bryant filed her own notice asserting that she
had properly served process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). (DE # 10.)
However, the Magistrate Judge disagreed and issued a report and recommendation
finding that the docket failed to show the necessary summonses as required by Rule
4(i). (DE # 11 at 1.) Thus, he recommended that the matter be “dismissed for lack of
service.” (Id. at 2.)
The next day, Bryant filed an objection to the report and recommendation. (DE
# 12.) When a party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the
district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district

court has discretion to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The court first looks to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the docket, as of May
8, 2017, failed to show that the necessary summonses were executed as required.
Nothing in the objection leads the court to question this finding. Even Bryant—in her
objection—does not argue that the documents she disclosed in her prior notice (DE
# 10) were sufficient to demonstrate proper service. (See DE # 12.) Accordingly, the
court will accept this finding from the report and recommendation.
Next the court looks to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the matter
be dismissed for lack of service. On May 9, 2017, Bryant filed new documents which she
purports reflect that service of process was proper under the requirements of Rule 4(i).
(See DE ## 12, 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 12-9, 12-10, 12-11, 12-12.) Given
these new entries to the docket, the court finds that dismissal based on the status of the
docket on May 8, 2017, is no longer appropriate.
For the reasons explained above, this court ACCEPTS in part the report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Rodovich (DE # 11) to the extent that it finds that
the docket, as of May 8, 2017, failed to reflect proper service. The court REJECTS in part
the report and recommendation (DE # 11) to the extent that it recommends dismissal
for lack of service.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 16, 2017
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2