Chambers v. Bimbo Bakery et al

Filing 17

ORDER The magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 16 ) is accepted in its entirety. Any objections are deemed waived. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

8:19-cv-00200-RFR-MDN Doc # 17 Filed: 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 181

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KAYOKA D. CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,

8:19CV200

v.
ORDER
BIMBO BAKERY and BIMBO
BAKERIES USA, INC.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 16)
recommending the Court dismiss this case “without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve the defendants.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). In making that recommendation, the magistrate judge1 notes plaintiff
Kayoka D. Chambers (“Chambers”) neither explained “why she did not follow the Court’s
directions to complete and return summons forms, despite being provid[ed] with an
opportunity to do so,” nor showed cause why this case should not be dismissed for failing
to follow the Court’s orders and failing to have “the summons and complaint served within
the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” Chambers also did not object to the Findings and
Recommendation within the time permitted.
Although § 636(b)(1) requires this Court to “make a de novo review of . . . specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” if no one objects,
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

1

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

8:19-cv-00200-RFR-MDN Doc # 17 Filed: 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 182

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).
Because Chambers has not properly responded to the order to show cause and has
not objected to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 16) is
accepted in its entirety. Any objections are deemed waived.

2.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

Dated this 19th day of September 2022.
BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

2