Amos v. Klemik et al

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 12/16/15. (DJP)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION DARRIN TROY AMOS, Plaintiff, vs. JOSHUA KLEMIK, UNIT MANAGER, MDSP; TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, CASE MANAGER, MDSP; TAMMY DEJONG, UNIT COORDINATOR, MDSP; JIM HALSEY, CULTURAL AFFAIRS COORDINATOR (CAC), MDSP; SPAK, CO, MDSP; MS. NIXON, CO, MDSP; ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN, MDSP, DIRECTOR OF PRISON OPERATIONS FOR SD DOC; AND UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STAFF; 4:15-CV-04044-KES ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE Defendants. Plaintiff, Darrin Troy Amos, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for the purpose of conducting any necessary hearings, including evidentiary hearings. On November 18, 2015, the magistrate judge submitted her report and recommended that Amos’s complaint (Docket 1) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the complaint on defendants by October 30, 2015. To date, service still has not been completed. Amos was notified in the report and recommendation that he had 14 days to file objections to the report. Even though no objections were filed that would require de novo review under Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990), the court reviewed the matter de novo and finds that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted in full. Therefore, it is ORDERED that: 1. The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Docket 15) is adopted in full. 2. Amos’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the complaint on defendants. Dated December 16, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen E. Schreier KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?