Filed: Sep. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . In the above-titled action, plaintiff alleges claims against two named defendants, specifically, the City of Richmond ("the City") and Christopher Magnus ("Magnus"). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's claims against both defendants will be dismissed pursuant to, respectively, Rules 12(b)(6) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 First, with respect to the City, by order filed August 2, 2016, plaintiff's claim
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . In the above-titled action, plaintiff alleges claims against two named defendants, specifically, the City of Richmond ("the City") and Christopher Magnus ("Magnus"). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's claims against both defendants will be dismissed pursuant to, respectively, Rules 12(b)(6) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 First, with respect to the City, by order filed August 2, 2016, plaintiff's claims..
More
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
In the above-titled action, plaintiff alleges claims against two named defendants, specifically, the City of Richmond ("the City") and Christopher Magnus ("Magnus"). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's claims against both defendants will be dismissed pursuant to, respectively, Rules 12(b)(6) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1
First, with respect to the City, by order filed August 2, 2016, plaintiff's claims against said defendant were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; by the same order, plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to file, no later than August 12, 2016, a First Amended Complaint, and was informed that if he did not do so, the case would proceed only as against Magnus. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court's order filed August 2, 2016, to the extent the above-titled action is brought against the City, the action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Second, with respect to Magnus, by order filed September 14, 2016, plaintiff was directed to show cause, in writing and no later than September 28, 2016, why his claims against said defendant should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court's order.
Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against Magnus are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m).
In light of the above, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the file and enter judgment in favor of defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
