DREWRY v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al

Filing 258

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 205 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) filed by CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, STOCKWELL, ELISABETH LAMSON, ROBERT CLINTON, HOCKERSMITH, DEBORAH HILL. Objections to R&R due by 3/8/2017. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRANDON B. DREWRY,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants
)

1:14-cv-00392-GZS

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Dana Webster and Robin Cross-Snell move the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against them based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve them with Plaintiff’s
amended complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. (ECF No. 205.)
Rule 4(m) provides in relevant part: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days
after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or its own after notice to the plaintiff –
must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be
made within a specific time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). At the time Defendants filed the
motion, although Plaintiff had been granted leave to join Defendants Webster and CrossSnell more than a year earlier (Recommended Decision, ECF No. 90, Order Affirming,
ECF No. 95), Plaintiff had not served Defendants.
Subsequent to the filing of the motion to dismiss, however, in response to the Court’s
order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed against Defendants Webster and Cross-Snell
without filing a comprehensive amended complaint (Order, ECF No. 216), counsel notified
the Court that counsel would accept service on behalf of Defendants Webster and Cross-

Snell. (ECF No. 218.) Defendants Webster and Cross-Snell then filed an answer to the
amended complaint. (ECF No. 236.) The Court later permitted Defendants Webster and
Cross-Snell to join in Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 241.)
Defendants Webster and Cross-Snell are now parties to the case.
Because Defendants Webster and Cross-Snell have been joined as parties to this
action, the basis for the motion to dismiss is moot. Accordingly, I recommend the Court
dismiss the motion to dismiss as moot.
NOTICE

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge' s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within
fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive
memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the
objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court' s
order.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2017.

2