ORDER

SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles (Doc. 137) recommending that Defendants Acuna and Rodriguez and Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to timely effect service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 2) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) Plaintiff filed an objection on November 21, 2019 (Doc. 146).

The Court has considered the objection and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Plaintiff's objection. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate").

Specifically, Plaintiff's objection tries to offer an excuse for his failure to serve. However, Plaintiff was previously given an extension of time to accomplish service. Then, after failing to serve again, Plaintiff was given more time to show cause for his failure to effect service of process. Plaintiff failed to show cause by the deadline set. Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff's explanation, it does not show good cause to avoid dismissal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 137) is accepted and Defendants Acuna and Rodriguez and Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to timely effect service of process.