Van Ornum v. US Department of Health and Human Service et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order- denying 14 Motion for Extension of Time. As setforth in the Courts previous Order, Plaintiff shall have until February 27, 2014, to serveDefendants. It is So Ordered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 2/19/14. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

SANDRA C.K. VAN ORNUM,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

vs.
Case No. 2:13-cv-671
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and
HUMAN SERVICES, HAWAII
PACIFIC HEALTH, KUAKINI
HEALTH, and WILLIAM GOODHUE,
JR.,

District Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by District Judge Clark
Waddoups pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) (doc. 4).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), this Court previously granted Plaintiff
Sandra C.K. Van Ornum (“Plaintiff”) two separate extensions of time within which to serve her
Complaint on Defendants U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hawaii Pacific
Health, Kuakini Health and William Goodhue, Jr. (collectively “Defendants”).1 First, on
November 21, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request, giving her until January 29, 2014, to

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “If a defendant is not served within
120 days after the complaint is filed, the court— on its own after notice to the plaintiff— must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the
time for service for an appropriate period.”

serve Defendants (doc. 10). Then, on January 8, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second
request, giving Plaintiff until February 27, 2014, to effect service (doc. 12).
Now, currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third request for an extension entitled
“Motion For Extention [sic] Of Time Compliant With Exhaustion Of Administration Remedies
Prerequiste [sic]” (doc. 14). In her motion, Plaintiff asks “that the Court’s order dated on January
8, 2014 to be reconsidered so claimant is able to file a written request with the agency for
reconsideration of the final determination . . . .” (doc 14, p.15).
Upon consideration, the Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 14). As stated, the
Court granted Plaintiff two prior extensions. Furthermore, in its January 8, 2014, Order the
Court warned that no further extensions would be given and that a failure to serve the Defendants
by the designated date “shall result in the Court’s immediate dismissal of the complaint”
(doc.12).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion For Extention [sic] Of Time Compliant With
Exhaustion Of Administration Remedies Prerequiste [sic]” is hereby DENIED (doc 14). As set
forth in the Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff shall have until February 27, 2014, to serve
Defendants.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2014.

___________________________
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

3