Harding v. Core Civic

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 11/27/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular 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

JOSHUA HARDING
v.
CORECIVIC

TO:

)
)
)
)
)

NO: 3:17-1002

Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

By Order entered August 18, 2017 (Docket Entry No. 6), the District Judge referred this
prisoner civil rights action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings 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.
Joshua Harding (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit pro se and in forma pauperis on June 30, 2017,
while confined as an inmate at the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility (“MDCDF”) in
Nasvhille, Tennessee. He seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a claim that he has been
denied constitutionally adequate medical care at the MDCDF. Specifically, he alleges that
CoreCivic, a private entity that operates the MDCDF, failed to take appropriate and necessary action
in response to an outbreak of scabies that occurred among inmates at the MDCDF in 2016-2017.
Upon the initial screening of the complaint, the Court directed that the Clerk send Plaintiff
a service packet for the named defendant. See Order entered August 18, 2017 (Docket Entry No. 6).
Plaintiff was directed to complete the service packet and return it to the Clerk’s Office within

twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Order and was forewarned by the Court that his failure to
return the service packet within the time frame could jeopardize his prosecution of the action. Id.
The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not returned a completed service packet or otherwise
communicated with the Court since filing his complaint.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the defendant be served with
process within 90 days of the date the 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). Plaintiff has not returned a completed service packet to the Court so that process can issue
in this action. Because a service packet has not been returned and process has not issued to
Defendant within the time period set out in Rule 4(m), this action should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.1
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

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.
2

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).

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge

3