Cunningham v. Addiction Intervention et al

Filing 74

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of the filing of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Courts previous Order. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/19/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh) Modified on 4/20/2016 (eh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CRAIG CUNNINGHAM
v.
ADDICTION INTERVENTION, et al.

)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:14-0770
Judge Trauger/Knowles

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned previously entered an Order on March 15, 2016 (Docket No. 71),
requiring Plaintiff to file with the Court a written explanation showing cause for his failure to
serve Defendants 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