Larry L. Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions et al
Filing
59
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of the filing of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's previous Order. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 11/15/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LARRY LEMAY
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al.
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:12-0852
Judge Sharp/Knowles
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned previously entered an Order on October 16,
2013 (Docket Entry No. 56), requiring Plaintiff to file with the
Court a written explanation showing cause for his failure to
serve Defendants, Stephanie Stinson, John Doe #1, John Doe #2,
and Jane Doe #1, within 120 days after the filing of the
Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
The Order required
Plaintiff to file such explanation within twenty (20) days of the
date of entry of the Order, and it also stated in pertinent part,
“If Plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of this Order,
the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed
without prejudice.”
As of the date of the filing of this Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s
previous Order.
Therefore, the undersigned recommends that this
action be dismissed without prejudice.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any party has fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and
Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court.
Any party opposing said
objections shall have fourteen (14) days after service of any
objections filed to this Report in which to file any response to
said objections.
Failure to file specific objections within
fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation
can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435
(1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
E. CLIFTON KNOWLES
United States Magistrate Judge
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?