United States District Court, Southern District of New York
July 7, 2003
RAYMOND RICHARDSON, PLAINTIFF,
METROPLUS HEALTH PLAN DBA NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Andrew Peck, Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's pro se complaint in this action was filed as of February 27, 2003.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Time Limit for Service. If service of the summons and
complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120
days after the filing of the complaint, the court,
upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to
the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without
prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service
be effected within a specified time; provided that if
the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the
court shall extend the time for service for an
appropriate period. . . .
By Order dated March 26, 2003, I advised plaintiff that if the complaint was not properly served under Rule 4(m), that is, by June 27, 2003, I would recommend that the action be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 4.) I also directed plaintiff to provide my chambers with proof of service when made. (Id.) Plaintiff signed the receipt for the certified copy of my Order.
Plaintiff has not provided my chambers with proof of service on any defendant, and a review of the Court's docket sheet for this action discloses that there is no affidavit of service on file with the Clerk's Office.
More than 120 days having passed from the filing of the complaint, and the Court having advised plaintiff of her obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and there being no indication that plaintiff has had the complaint served on defendant, I recommend that the Court dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to timely serve it pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). See, e.g., Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2002); Mendolia v. General Media Communications. Inc., 02 Civ. 10081, 2003 WL 21033534 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2003) (Peck, M.J.); Brown v. Rapisarda, 01 Civ. 1217, 2002 WL 1402339 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2002) (Peck, M.J.); Hill v. Odland, 00 Civ. 6125, 2002 WL 426188 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2002) (Peck, M.J.).*fn1
FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Such objections (and any responses to objections) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with courtesy copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1320, and to my chambers, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1370. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Preska. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 822, 115 S.Ct. 86 (1994); Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298,300 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1038, 113 S.Ct. 825 (1992); Small v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 57-59 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).