Baker v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 79 Motion For Marshals to Serve Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon. (Miles, M)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DARRYL ORRIN BAKER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10360 v. DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC; MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON LATOYA BURNSIDE, DIRECTOR; DOROTHY JONES, EMPLOYEE SPECIALIST; CLARINET MCFADDEN; VERTRICE ROBY; MR. LYONS; HENRY HOBSON; MS. FRIERSON, Defendants. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MARSHALS TO SERVE DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO. 79) On March 18, 2011, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ordered the clerk to provide the Second Amended Complaint for the United States Marshal Service to effectuate service on Defendants Jody Bradley and Mark A. Cuneen. (Dkt. No. 61). Judge Edmunds said, “[t]his is the fourth attempt to serve Defendants Cuneen and Bradley. Waiver of Service have been returned Unexecuted on May 19, 2009, February 25, 2010 and February 4, 2011. Return of Service Unexecuted as to either Defendants Cuneen or Bradley may result in dismissal of that defendant.” (Dkt. No. 61 at 2). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Marshals to Serve the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 79). Plaintiff provides the Court another address in which he believes -1- Defendants Bradley and Cunnen are located. However, on June 13, 2011, Judge Edmunds dismissed Defendants Bradley and Cuneen without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 63). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 79) is DENIED. s/Mark A. Randon Mark A. Randon United States Magistrate Judge Dated: August 8, 2012 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record on this date, August 8, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Melody R. Miles Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon -2-

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?