Hanks v. Hills et al

Filing 75

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 72 . This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as against Defendant Trista Shields. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on December 21, 2016. (CBC) cc: Plaintiff. Modified on 12/21/2016 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CLAYTON JAMES HANKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON HILLS, Lieutenant, NICHOLAS
DESOTELLE, Correctional Officer,
DUSTIN ENGH, MICHAEL MARCOTT,
LAWRENCE AMSDEN, CHRIS
SCHULTZ, LUKE RICHLING, TRISTA
SHIELDS, JOHANNES OLIVIER,
EMILY MELLINGEN, and TRAVIS
BRINKLEY, each in their individual and
official capacities; MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
and CORIZON (company name
unknown),

Case No. 15-cv-4275 (JNE/TNL)
ORDER

Defendants.
In December 2015, Plaintiff Clayton James Hanks filed a complaint alleging violation of
his civil rights, naming multiple defendants. Hanks proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. In a
Report and Recommendation dated November 7, 2016, the Honorable Tony N. Leung, United
States Magistrate Judge, recommended that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),
the action be dismissed without prejudice with respect to Defendant Trista Shields, who has not
yet been served. No objection to the Report and Recommendation was made. The Court has
nonetheless conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that
review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 72].
Hanks did not object to the Report and Recommendation and has not shown good cause
why Rule 4(m) should not be enforced after the United States Marshals were unable to serve
Defendant Shields despite reasonable efforts. The reasonableness of the Marshals’ efforts to

locate Defendant Shields, starting with the contact information that Defendants presumably
provided pursuant to Judge Leung’s July 22, 2016 Order, see Dkt. Nos. 46 & 63, is reinforced by
the fact that similar efforts by the Marshals resulted in the apparently successful service of
process on Defendants Luke Richling and Corizon, see Dkt. No. 62.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as against Defendant Trista
Shields.
Dated: December 21, 2016

s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2