Drollinger v. Richards et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 6 Report and Recommendations re 3 Complaint filed by Quintin Drollinger. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 1/11/2017. (jds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH- CENTRAL DIVISION
QUINTIN DROLLINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID RICHARDS and AYMEE
RICHARDS,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE
Case No. 2:15-cv-00660-RJS-DBP
Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Dustin R. Pead

Plaintiff Quintin Drollinger instigated this action by filing a civil rights Complaint in
September 2015.1 On October 20, 2015, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin B.
Pead pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).2
On December 2, 2016, Judge Pead issued an Order to Show Cause in view of
Drollinger’s failure to that date to provide the court with proof of service of a summons and the
Complaint on the Defendants.3 Rule 4(l)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required
Drollinger to make such proof to the court. And at the time Drollinger filed suit, Rule 4(m)
required him to effectuate such service within 120 days.4 Judge Pead ordered Drollinger to
respond to the court in writing within fifteen days to show cause why the case should not be

1

Dkt. 3.

2

Dkt. 4.

3

Dkt. 5

dismissed for failure to prosecute, warning that “[f]ailure to do so will result in dismissal of the
case.”5 The court’s docket shows no response from Drollinger to Judge Pead’s Order.
On December 21, 2016, Judge Pead issued a Report and Recommendation6 in which he
recounted the above-discussed facts and recommended that the undersigned dismiss Drollinger’s
Complaint without prejudice based on his failure to prosecute his case. Judge Pead in his Report
and Recommendation stated that parties may file written objections to it within fourteen days,
and that “[f]ailure to object may constitute a waiver of objections upon subsequent review.”7
To date, no party has filed any objection to Judge Pead’s Report and Recommendation.
Any objection filed at this point would be untimely. Moreover, the court’s careful review of the
record leads it to conclude that Judge Pead’s Report and Recommendation is correct and should
be adopted.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge

5

Id. at 2.

6

Dkt. 6.

7

Dkt. 6 at 2.

2