Peterson et al v. C.B. Fleet Company, Inc.

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: That this action be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's Order of February 2, 2009, for failure to effect proper service on the Defendant, and for lack of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2009 Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Raymond L. Erickson on 03/03/2009. (MMP)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ******************* Dorothy A. Peterson and Norman E. Peterson, Plaintiffs, vs. C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Defendant. Civ. No. 08-5282 (PJS/RLE) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ******************* This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon routine supervision of cases filed in this Division, and upon an assignment made in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). This action was commenced on September 26, 2008, by the filing of a Complaint with the Clerk of Court. On February 2, 2009, it having appeared that one hundred and twenty (120) days had passed, and the Defendant C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., had not been served with the Complaint and Summons, as required by Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court issued an Order, which stated as follows: That the Plaintiffs are directed to show good cause, in writing, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, for an extension of time in which service can be effectuated. In the absence of good cause shown, the Court shall Recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to effect proper service on the Defendant, and for failure of prosecution. The Plaintiffs have failed to abide by the terms of our Order of February 2, 2009. Since we have previously warned the Plaintiffs of the potential consequences for their failure to timely serve the Defendant, and to abide by the Orders of this Court, we recommend that this action be dismissed, for failure to comply with this Court's Order of February 2, 2009, for failure to effect proper service on the Defendant, and for lack of prosecution. NOW, THEREFORE, It is -RECOMMENDED: That this action be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's Order of February 2, 2009, for failure to effect proper service on the Defendant, and for lack of prosecution. BY THE COURT: Dated: March 3, 2009 Betw _A X|v~ Raymond L. Erickson CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2- NOTICE Pursuant to Rule 6(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, D. Minn. LR1.1(f), and D. Minn. LR72.2(b), any party may object to this Report and Recommendation by filing with the Clerk of Court, and by serving upon all parties by no later than March 20, 2009, a writing which specifically identifies those portions of the Report to which objections are made and the bases of those objections. Failure to comply with this procedure shall operate as a forfeiture of the objecting party's right to seek review in the Court of Appeals. If the consideration of the objections requires a review of a transcript of a Hearing, then the party making the objections shall timely order and file a complete transcript of that Hearing by no later than March 20, 2009, unless all interested parties stipulate that the District Court is not required by Title 28 U.S.C. 636 to review the transcript in order to resolve all of the objections made. -3-

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?