Williams v. Ertz et al
DISMISSAL ORDER - The order of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 19 , is adopted in its entirety. The objections of the plaintiff, Filing No. 20 , are overruled. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy E-mailed to pro se party) (GJG) Modified on 8/26/2014 to reflect copy "e-mailed" (GJG).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARCHBISHOP JOCITA C. WILLIAMS,
LAND AMERICA LAWYERS TITLE,
DOES; et al.,
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s objections, Filing No. 20, to the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 19.
The magistrate judge
recommended that the plaintiff’s amended complaint, Filing No. 9, be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 37.
Pro se plaintiff filed this case
alleging a civil rights violation on the basis of race and gender involving an alleged
mortgage fraud, apparently in the State of Colorado.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 19, 2012.
In March of 2013, plaintiff
asked for permission to amend her complaint, which the magistrate judge granted, and
she filed the same on June 11, 2013. Filing Nos. 7 and 9. The court then dismissed
some of the defendants and moved forward with five of the defendants. Filing No. 10.
The Clerk of Court then gave plaintiff the appropriate forms and summonses. Plaintiff
did not serve the defendants in this case, and as a result, the magistrate judge issued
an order on December 24, 2013, to show cause as to why her case should not be
dismissed pursuant to NECivR 41.2 for failure to prosecute. Filing No. 12. Plaintiff
asked for additional time to serve the defendants, Filing No. 13, which the magistrate
judge permitted. Filing No. 14.
Thereafter, the plaintiff sent some of summonses to the defendants, but two of
them were returned as they contained no address. Filing No. 15. The three others
were also returned unexecuted. See Filing Nos. 16-18. The U.S. Marshal’s office
stated that plaintiff did not remedy the deficiencies so as to permit service. The plaintiff
has filed nothing since that time. No defendant has been served, and this case has
been pending for two years.
Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this case be
dismissed. Plaintiff cites a plethora of law, generally not addressing the ruling of the
magistrate judge. She also contends that she was involved in a car accident in January
2014, requiring a surgery in February 2014, and some resulting physical therapy, and
she suffers from diabetes. She attaches a letter from a law firm addressed to another
court in support of her claims. Filing No. 20-1. However, the plaintiff has not alleged
any ailments or physical injuries that would prohibit her from pursuing this lawsuit.
The magistrate judge determined, and this court agrees, dismissal without
prejudice is appropriate when service is not effectuated within 120 days of the filing of
the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442
(8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s dismissal without prejudice under
Rule 4(m)); see also Carmona v. Ross, 376 F.3d 829, 830 (8th Cir. 2004) (dismissal
affirmed where plaintiff given opportunity, failed to cure defect); see also NECivR 41.2
“At any time, a case not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence may be dismissed
for lack of prosecution.” The court agrees that the magistrate judge extended the 120day deadline an additional 90 days. The deadline has long expired, and plaintiff has
failed to serve any of the defendants. Regardless of plaintiff’s January 14th automobile
accident, this case has been active for nearly two years and no service has been
effectuated. In that same regard, plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders
regarding service on these defendants. For these reasons, and as stated in the order of
the magistrate judge, the court finds it is appropriate to dismiss this case without
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The order of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 19, is adopted in its entirety.
2. The objections of the plaintiff, Filing No. 20, are overruled.
3. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
Dated this 26th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge
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?