VINCENT v. PARENT

Filing 13

ORDER affirming in part and modifying in part 9 Report and Recommendations, denying 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 7 Motion to Quash. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jlg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PIERRE A. VINCENT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DON PARENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00088-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 11, 2014, Pierre A. Vincent filed a complaint in this Court against
Don Parent with whom Mr. Vincent was employed at the United States Postal
Service. Compl. (ECF No. 1). As the Recommended Decision discusses, Mr. Vincent
has not yet properly served either Mr. Parent with the Complaint. Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 9). Even though the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint
based on a lack of proper service of process, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
the Court deny the motion to dismiss, grant a motion to quash, and enter an order
extending the time for Mr. Vincent to effect service. Id. at 3. The Defendant objected
on only one point: that although the Magistrate Judge recommended that the time
for service of process be extended, he did not recommend a particular amount of time.
Defs.’ Limited Objection to Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 12).
It is correct that the Magistrate Judge did not recommend a time limit for
service of process, preferring instead to leave that issue to this Court. The Court
therefore imposes the following deadline on Mr. Vincent: proof of proper service of

the Complaint within the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 must be
made by January 5, 2015. If Mr. Vincent has not filed documents by January 5, 2015
confirming that he has made proper service of process by January 5, 2015, the
pending Complaint will be subject to dismissal upon motion by Defendant.
The Court performed a de novo review of the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge and it concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge
for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision regarding the denial of the
motion to dismiss, the granting of the motion to quash, and the granting of the motion
to extend time. The Court only modifies the Recommended Decision as follows: that
the time for Pierre A. Vincent to effect service of process upon the Defendant shall be
extended to January 5, 2015 and if Mr. Vincent fails to file proof of proper service of
process by that date, the Complaint will be subject to dismissal upon motion of the
Defendant.
The Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss;
(2) The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Quash; and
(3) The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time and allows the
Plaintiff until January 5, 2015 to file proof of proper service of process under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of November, 2014