VINCENT v. BURTON et al

Filing 17

ORDER affirming in part and modifying in part 13 Report and Recommendations, denying 11 Motion to Dismiss; granting 11 Motion to Quash. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jlg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PIERRE A. VINCENT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOB BURTON, et als.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00095-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 17, 2014, Pierre A. Vincent filed a complaint in this Court against
Bob Burton and Colleen Cothran 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. Burton or Ms. Cothran with the
Complaint. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13). Even though the Defendants
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 Defendants 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. 16).
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 Defendants.
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 Defendants 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
Defendants.
The Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Court DENIES the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
(2) The Court GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion to Quash; and
(3) The Court GRANTS the Defendants’ 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.

2

SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2014

3