DUFFY v. KNADLE, 8:14CV147. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141014b19
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court after a review of the court file and pursuant to NECivR 41.2, which states in pertinent part: "At any time, a case not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution." Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) establishes a 120-day time limit for service of process on any defendant in a civil case, absent a showing of good cause. In this case the complaint was filed on May 14, 2
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court after a review of the court file and pursuant to NECivR 41.2, which states in pertinent part: "At any time, a case not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution." Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) establishes a 120-day time limit for service of process on any defendant in a civil case, absent a showing of good cause. In this case the complaint was filed on May 14, 20..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court after a review of the court file and pursuant to NECivR 41.2, which states in pertinent part: "At any time, a case not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution." Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) establishes a 120-day time limit for service of process on any defendant in a civil case, absent a showing of good cause.
In this case the complaint was filed on May 14, 2014. See Filing No. 1. The plaintiff requested and the Clerk of Court issued summons. See Filing Nos. 8 and 9. There is no evidence in the record the plaintiff served process on the defendant. The deadline for service of process expired on or about September 11, 2014. The defendant has not made an appearance. It remains the plaintiff's duty to go forward in prosecuting the case. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff must make a showing of good cause for the failure of timely service or the action must be dismissed against the defendant. Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiff has until the close of business on October 15, 2014, to file with the Clerk of Court evidence of service or show cause why this case should not be dismissed as against the defendant for failure to prosecute.
Source: Leagle
