KASS v. HOUSTON, 8:11CV426. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120524b84
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 23, 2012
Latest Update: May 23, 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 December 13, 2011. See Filing No. 1 . The
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 December 13, 2011. See Filing No. 1 . The ..
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 December 13, 2011. See Filing No. 1. The plaintiff has initiated no other action in this matter. There is no evidence in the record the plaintiff has sought a summons or served process. The deadline for service of process expired on or about April 11, 2012. 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 June 5, 2012, to file evidence of service or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute the defendant.
Source: Leagle
