REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, Magistrate Judge.

On January 22, 2015, Plaintiffs added the Board of Police Commissioners as a Defendant. Text Order entered January 22, 2015; Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [15], ¶ 6. However, Plaintiffs have not taken steps to perfect service on Defendant Board of Police Commissioners. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) directs that a plaintiff must serve a defendant within 120 days of filing of the Complaint. On May 22, 2015, the 120 days for service lapsed. Plaintiffs' counsel was reminded of the lack of service on Defendant Board of Police Commissioners at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. Minute Entry, April 28, 2015 Scheduling Conference. Plaintiffs were further reminded of the 120-day rule by this Court's Text Order of September 2, 2015 and advised if service was not perfected, the case was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. As of this date, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule 4(m) as to Defendant Board of Police Commissioners. The Court recommends that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed as to Defendant Board of Police Commissioners without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 4(m).

Plaintiff is advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). See Local Rule 72.2.