Schneider v. Karriker et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The report of the magistrate judge 81 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Shauna Vestal are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process. The statute of limitations on Plaintiff's claims against Vestal is SUSPENDED for a period of 60 days following the date of entry of final judgment. Inasmuch as Vestal is the last remaining defendant in this case, this lawsuit is hereby DISMISSED. Any and all motions which may be pending in this cause are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 09/08/15. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GAYE KARRIKER, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-816-MHS-JDL
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING INITIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON DEFENDANT SHAUNA VESTAL AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Edwin Schneider, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered
that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrate Judges.
All of the Defendants except for Shauna Vestal have previously been dismissed. Service of
process on Vestal was attempted by the United States Marshal but was returned unexecuted. On
May 13, 2015, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to provide a current address for Vestal or show
cause why Vestal should not be dismissed from the lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see Kersh v.
Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988).
When Plaintiff did not comply with this order, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending that Vestal be dismissed from the lawsuit. The magistrate judge also recommended
that the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims against Vestal be suspended for a period of 60
days following the entry of final judgment. Plaintiff has not filed objections to this report;
accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions,
and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district
court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012); Douglass v. United Serices Automobile Association, 79
F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
The Court has reviewed the record in this cause and the report of the magistrate judge. Upon
such review, the Court has determined that the report of the magistrate judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989)
(where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 81) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant Shauna Vestal are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It is further
ORDERED that the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims against Vestal is
SUSPENDED for a period of 60 days following the date of entry of final judgment. It is further
ORDERED that inasmuch as Vestal is the last remaining defendant in this case, this lawsuit
is hereby DISMISSED. Any and all motions which may be pending in this cause are hereby
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2015.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?