Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JOHNSON v. ON-CALL STAFFING, INC., 3:10-1141. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20160316d86 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION E. CLIFTON KNOWLES , Magistrate Judge . The undersigned previously entered an Order on November 16, 2015 (Docket No. 74), requiring Plaintiff to file with the Court a written explanation showing cause for her failure to serve defendants within 120 days after the filing of the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The Order required Plaintiff to file such explanation within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of the Order, and it also stated in pertinent part,
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned previously entered an Order on November 16, 2015 (Docket No. 74), requiring Plaintiff to file with the Court a written explanation showing cause for her failure to serve defendants within 120 days after the filing of the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The Order required Plaintiff to file such explanation within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of the Order, and it also stated in pertinent part, "If Plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of this Order, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice."

As of the date of the filing of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's previous Order. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer