ORDER

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly (Doc. 19). In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate recommends that Plaintiff Joseph Magurczek's ("Plaintiff") Complaint be dismissed for failure to serve Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or "the Commissioner") and for failure to prosecute. Id. On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23). For the reasons that follow, the Court will not dismiss the Complaint.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has demonstrated a pattern of difficulty in complying with the Court's Orders and in prosecuting this action. On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint challenging Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's application for Social Security disability benefits (Doc. 1). On May 4, 2010, the Magistrate issued an Order To Show Cause as to why Plaintiff had not filed a return of service as to the Commissioner (Doc. 4). After considering Plaintiff's Response to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7), the Magistrate granted Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days to serve the summons and Complaint on the Commissioner (Doc. 8). Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with the requisite proof of service within the sixty-day period.

On April 5, 2011, the Magistrate issued another Order to Show Cause as to why Plaintiff's case should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court's previous Order (Doc. 10). On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Response explaining that the Commissioner had been successfully served on August 31, 2010. See Doc. 12. However, Plaintiff did not provide the Court with proof of service until April 11, 2012. See Doc. 13. On February 23, 2012, the Magistrate informed Plaintiff that he had not properly effectuated service on the Commissioner (Doc. 16). As required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i), Plaintiff must additionally serve the United States Attorney in and for the Middle District of Florida and the United States Attorney General within thirty (30) days. Id. Once again, Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with the requisite proof of service within the thirty-day period. On March 28, 2012, the Magistrate recommended Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to serve Defendant and for failure to prosecute this action (Doc. 19).

STANDARD

When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in a Report and Recommendation, the District Court should make a de novo review of the record with respect to the factual issues. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). Once a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation is made, the District Judge may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The District Judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with further instructions. Id.

ANALYSIS

Once a timely objection to a Report and Recommendation is made, the Court is permitted to receive further evidence on that matter. Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 667. At filing, the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation was entirely correct. Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with the requisite proof of service on all relevant parties within the thirty-day period. However, subsequent to the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff provided proof of service as to all parties (Doc. 24). Therefore, upon review of Plaintiff's further filings, Plaintiff's Complaint will not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendant or for failure to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: