MURPHY v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, 8:12CV77. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120702944
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court sua sponte, 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, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) establishes a 120-day time limit for service of process on the defendant in a civil case, absent a showing of good cause. In this case the complaint was filed on February 22, 2012. See Filing No. 1 .
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court sua sponte, 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, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) establishes a 120-day time limit for service of process on the defendant in a civil case, absent a showing of good cause. In this case the complaint was filed on February 22, 2012. See Filing No. 1 . ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court sua sponte, 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, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) establishes a 120-day time limit for service of process on the defendant in a civil case, absent a showing of good cause.
In this case the complaint was filed on February 22, 2012. See Filing No. 1. The plaintiff sought and received summonses on June 6, 2012. See Filing Nos. 4-7. However, there is no evidence the summonses were served. The deadline for service of process expired on or about June 21, 2012. The defendants have 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 defendants. Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiff has until the close of business on July 13, 2012, to file evidence of service or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute the defendants.
Source: Leagle
