Hillesheim v. Barrington Shoppes at 370, L.L.C.

Filing 14

ORDER that the Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 13 ) is accepted. Any objections are deemed waived. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ZACH HILLESHEIM,
Plaintiff,
v.

8:18CV290
ORDER

BARRINGTON SHOPPES AT 370, L.L.C,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 13)
issued by the magistrate judge 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge
recommends the Court dismiss this case “for failure of service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m).” The magistrate judge notes he has twice ordered plaintiff Zach
Hillesheim (“Hillesheim”) to show cause (Filing Nos. 5, 12) why this case should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution. Hillesheim responded (Filing No. 8) to the first order
and was given more time to serve the defendant (Filing No. 9) but did not. To this point,
Hillesheim has not (1) responded to the magistrate judge’s second order to show cause,
(2) provided any evidence of service, or (3) filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendation of dismissal.
Section 636(b)(1) requires this Court to “make a de novo review of . . . specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Absent objection,
however, further review is unnecessary. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939
(1991); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he
failure to file objections eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review
by the district court.”); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59 (a), (b)(2) (explaining the failure to
timely object waives the right to review); NECrimR 59.2(a), (e).

The Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
1

Because Hillesheim has not responded to the second order to show cause and has
not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 13) is accepted.
objections are deemed waived.

2.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

Dated this 27th day of December 2018.
BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
United States District Judge

2

Any