Ranonis v. Garland et al

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED as the Order of the Court, and Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/26/24. (ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Denis Pyatro Ranonis,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01620-RMG

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas,
and Ur M. Jaddou,
Defendant.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge
recommending the Court dismiss the case without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to submit to
the Court proof of service on the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 13). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court and the case is dismissed without prejudice.
I.

Background
On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint requesting declaratory and injunctive
relief regarding his Petition for Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence (Form I-485). (Dkt.
No. 1). On July 3, 2024, the Magistrate Judge authorized service of process and direct the Clerk to
issue a summons to Plaintiff for service upon Defendants. (Dkt. No. 8). There is no evidence that
Plaintiff ever effectuated service. On October 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R and
advised Plaintiff to provide the Court with proof of service on Defendants or present good cause
for failure to do so, within fourteen days and recommended dismissing the case if Plaintiff failed
to do so. (Dkt. No. 13). The time for service of the Complaint and objections to the R & R has now
passed. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with proof of service on
Defendants or present good cause for such failure.

1

II.

Legal Standard
A. Pro Se Pleadings
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development
of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore
a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the
Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v.
Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no presumptive
weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R that a plaintiff specifically
objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where a plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “a district
court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). “Moreover,
in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation.” Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr., No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL
1124701, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). See also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
1983). Plaintiff did not file objections in this case, and the R & R is reviewed for clear error.

2

III.

Discussion
The Magistrate Judge issued an order authorizing service upon receipt of Plaintiff's

complaint. The order specifically advised Plaintiff that she is responsible for service of process.
(Dkt. No. 8). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m) states that “[i]f a defendant is not served
within ninety (90) days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” The time
for service began to run on July 3, 2024, and the ninety (90) day period for service provided by
Rule 4(m) expired on October 1, 2024. The Magistrate granted Plaintiff an additional fourteen
days to submit proof of service after filing the R & R on October 30, 2024, warning Plaintiff that
the failure to properly serve the complaint would result in this case being dismissed. (Dkt No. 13.)
Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with proof of service or present good cause to the Court for
failure to serve the Defendant. Therefore, the case is dismissed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED

as the Order of the Court, and Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

_s/ Richard Mark Gergel__
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
November 26, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3