Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Gieger
Filing
20
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 . Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 6/25/15. (Breen, J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 14-1058
JAMES R. GIEGER, Individually, and
d/b/a CARDINAL SPORTS GRILL,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
____________________________________________________________________________
This matter, brought on March 17, 2014, was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Edward
G. Bryant. (Docket Entries (“D.E.”) 1, 2.) Plaintiff, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., who has attempted
to serve the Defendant on numerous occasions, was granted five extensions of time to effect service
of process. (D.E. 6–15.) On May 19, 2015, after again failing to serve the Defendant, Magistrate
Judge Bryant ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. (D.E. 16.) In its response, Plaintiff summarized the efforts it had undertaken
in attempting to serve the Defendant, a long-haul trucker who no longer resides in West Tennessee.
(D.E. 17.) In a June 4, 2015 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bryant recommended
that the matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the time limit set forth in
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D.E. 18.)
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, and the entire
record of the proceeding. No objections having been filed, and the time for doing so having expired,
the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation in its entirety.
This matter is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2015.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?