Carter v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 27

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Accordingly, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 41.01 of the Local Rules of Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 11/12/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JASON M. CARTER
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.

TO:

)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:14-1337

Honorable Kevin H. Sharp, Chief District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered July 2, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 9), the Court referred this action to the
Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se on May 16, 2014, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff appears to be a convicted prisoner
who is housed in a private mental-health facility in Columbia, South Carolina. See Docket Entry
No. 9. His claims are based upon events occurring, at least in part, in Tennessee related to his arrest,
detention, and criminal prosecution. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). Although Plaintiff filed
the lawsuit pro se, he paid the filing fee and has not been granted in forma pauperis status. See
Docket Entry Nos. 3 and 9.
Plaintiff was sent blank summons forms and advised to return them to the Clerk so that the
Clerk could issue summons to Plaintiff for his service upon Defendants. See Order entered July 30,
2014 (Docket Entry No. 18). Plaintiff was also specifically advised that he was responsible for
serving Defendants with the summons and complaint, in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and that he must serve Defendants with the summons and complaint within
120 days of the filing of the complaint in accordance with Rule 4(m) or this action will be dismissed,
unless this time is extended by the Court upon a showing of good cause. See Order entered July 7,
2014 (Docket Entry No. 11). The Clerk issued summons on August 11, 2014, and forwarded them
to Plaintiff. See Docket Entry No. 21. On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for default
judgment, see Docket Entry No. 23, which was denied by the Clerk on October 21, 2014, with a
specific advisement to Plaintiff that service of process upon Defendants must be made in accord with
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that he had not provided completed returns of
service or returned certified mail cards showing that service of process had been made upon
Defendants. See Denial of Default (Docket Entry No. 24). The docket in the action indicates that no
further activity has occurred in the lawsuit after the Denial of Default on October 21, 2014.
It is well settled that Federal trial courts have the inherent power to manage their own dockets.
Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). Furthermore,
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to dismiss an action upon a
showing of a clear record of delay, contumacious conduct, or failure to prosecute by the plaintiff, see
Carter v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980), and Rule 41.01 of the Local
Rules of Court states that any civil action that has been on the docket for six (6) months without any
responsive pleading or other court proceedings taken therein “shall be dismissed as a matter of
course.” Additionally, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the defendant
be served with process within 120 days of the date the action was filed and provides that, in the
absence of a showing of good cause by the plaintiff for why service has not been timely made, the
Court "must dismiss" the action without prejudice or order that service be made within a specified
time.
2

This lawsuit has been dormant for over one year, and there have been no steps taken by
Plaintiff to prosecute his action since his filing of the denied motion for default judgment in October
2014. There has also been no showing that service of process has been made upon Defendants, and
it is well beyond the time within which service of process must be made upon Defendants under
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Given these facts, the Court finds that dismissal
of the action is warranted.1

RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 41.01 of the Local Rules of Court.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this notice and must state with particularity the specific
portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court’s
Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466,
88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge

1

This Report and Recommendation provides notice to Plaintiff of the Court’s intention to sua
sponte dismiss the action under Federal Rules 4(m) and 41(b) and Local Rule 41.01, and the fourteen
day period for filing objections provides Plaintiff with the opportunity to show good cause why the
action should not be dismissed.
3