Zimmerman v. CK Parcels, LLC

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 10/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

KEVIN ZIMMERMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CK PARCELS, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01430-GMN-GWF

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

12
13

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) was filed on May 19, 2017. Therefore, the time limit for

14

service on Defendant was August 17, 2017. On August 23, 2017, the Court filed a Notice of Intent

15

to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 4(m) for Plaintiff’s failure to provide proof of service on Defendant.

16

See ECF No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff until September 22, 2017 to file a proof of service and

17

demonstrate that Defendant was served prior to the expiration of the 90-day time limit set forth in

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Id. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s notice

19

could result in a dismissal of the action. Id. Rather than file a proof of service, Plaintiff filed a

20

Motion to Extend Time for Service. See ECF No. 8. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, without

21

prejudice, on September 8, 2017 because Plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate whether good

22

cause existed to grant the requested extension. Order (ECF No. 9). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a

23

renewed motion for extension of time or filed a proof of service with the Court. Therefore, it

24

appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this lawsuit. Accordingly,

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

...

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
DATED this 12th day of October, 2017.

4
5

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

6
NOTICE
7
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be
8
in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has
9
held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file
10
objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has
11
also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly
12
address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or
13
appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157
14
(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2