Zimmerman v. Del Taco, LLC

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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 10/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

KEVIN ZIMMERMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DEL TACO, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01439-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 30, 2017, the Court filed a Notice of Intent to

15

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

16

ECF No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff until September 29, 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 could

19

result in a dismissal of the action. Id. B To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for extension of time

20

or filed a proof of service with the Court. Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this

21

lawsuit. Accordingly,

22

...

23

...

24

...

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
6

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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