Wang v. The State of Nebraska et al

Filing 9

ORDER - The Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation (filing 8 ) are adopted. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. A separate judgment will be entered. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BO WANG, Individually and on
behalf of X.C.W. as the "Next Friend"
of X.C.W., a minor,

8:17-CV-375

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation (filing 8) recommending that the Court dismiss the
plaintiff's claims. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge entered an order (filing 7) on February 20, 2018,
directing the plaintiff to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed
for lack of prosecution, because he has not served process as required by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m). The plaintiff did not respond, so on March 12, the Magistrate
Judge entered her Findings and Recommendation (filing 8). The time for
objecting to the Findings and Recommendation has now passed. See NECivR
72.2(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); NECivR 6.1. No objection or other
response has been made.
An involuntary dismissal for failure to serve process, failure to comply
with the Court's order, or for failure to prosecute, is within the Court's
discretion. Rule 4(m); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d
372, 373-74 (8th Cir. 1983). The plaintiff has failed to serve process, failed to
comply with the Court's orders, and generally failed to prosecute the case.

And 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review only when a party
objected to the magistrate's findings or recommendations. Peretz v. United
States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991). The failure to file an objection eliminates not
only the need for de novo review, but any review by the Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609
(8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court deems any objection to the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendation waived, and will adopt the findings
and recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation
(filing 8) are adopted.

2.

The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

3.

A separate judgment will be entered.

Dated this 30th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

-2-