Emrit v. VEVO, LLC et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 10/17/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
VEVO, LLC, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, )
WARNER MUSIC GROUP, INC.
and BLUE2DIGTIAL, INC.
TO: Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered October 9, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 8), the Court referred this pro se action
to the Magistrate Judge to enter a scheduling order for management of the case, to dispose or
recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to
conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and the Local Rules of Court.
Ronald Satish Emrit (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis on
September 8, 2015, against four defendants – SME, Vevo, LLC. (“Vevo”), Warner Music Group,
Inc. (“Warner”), and Blue2Digital, Inc. (“Blue2Digital”) – alleging a variety of claims and seeking
damages of $45,000,000.00, as well as injunctive relief. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) at 1
and 8-11. By Order entered May 31, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 59), all claims against Defendant SME
were dismissed with prejudice upon its motion.
The docket reflects that process was issued on October 9, 2015. See Docket Entry No. 9.
However, the remaining three Defendants have not responded to the complaint, and it is not readily
apparent that these Defendants have been properly served with process. The docket also reflects that
Plaintiff has not kept his current address updated, see Order entered April 19, 2016 (Docket Entry
No. 53), and that numerous mailings from the Court to Plaintiff at the address he provided or to
alternative addresses have been returned as undeliverable. See Docket Entry Nos. 45, 48, 51, 52, 55,
57, 61, 62, and 63.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that Defendants be served with
process within 90 days of the date this action was filed and provides that, in the absence of a showing
of good cause by Plaintiff for why service has not been timely made, the Court "must dismiss" the
action without prejudice. It is also well settled that Federal trial courts have the inherent power to
manage their own dockets, Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734
(1961), and 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).
Because Plaintiff has not shown that process has been served upon the three remaining
Defendants, dismissal of the action under Rule 4(m) is warranted. Additionally, Plaintiff has taken
no activity in the action since filing a flurry of motions in December 2015, all of which were
dismissed, and numerous court mailings to Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable. Given
Plaintiff’s apparent lack of interest in the action, his failure to keep the Court informed of a good
mailing address, and his failure to take the steps necessary to prosecute the action, the Court finds
that dismissal of the action is warranted.1
This Report and Recommendation provides notice to Plaintiff of the Court’s intention to
sua sponte dismiss the action, and the fourteen day period for filing objections provides him with
the opportunity to show good cause why the action should not be dismissed.
The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within ten (10) days of receipt 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
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?