Christman v. BE'S Refreshments Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00327
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RICHARD CHRISTMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-CV-327

BE’S REFRESHMENTS INC,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE1

On March 4, 2025, the above action was transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin by the District of Arizona after the district court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (Docket # 18.) On June 16, 2025, I entered an order informing Plaintiff that this Court only acquires personal jurisdiction over the defendant “if, upon transfer, the plaintiff serves (or re-serves) those defendants over whom the original court lacked personal jurisdiction.” Michelson v. Merrill Lunch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 1279, 1288 (S.D.N.Y.1989). I noted that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Plaintiff had 90 days from filing within which to effect service of the complaint upon the defendant but has not yet submitted any proof of service to the Court. (Docket # 21.) Plaintiff was warned that this action would be dismissed without prejudice if Plaintiff failed to show cause within

1 Because Defendant has not yet appeared in this District and has not consented to or refused magistrate judge jurisdiction, I issue a report and recommendation regarding the dismissal of the complaint. See Coleman v. Labor and Indus. Rev. Comm’n, 860 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2017). twenty-one (21) days as to why he has not timely effected service of process as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m). Ud.) To date, Plaintiff has neither submitted proof of service to the Court nor responded to the June 16, 2025 Show Cause Order. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Civ. L.R. 41(c) (E.D. Wis.), a court may dismiss an action where the plaintiff fails to diligently prosecute his case. Given Plaintiffs failure to respond, it is clear that he does not intend to prosecute this action. As such, I recommend Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. Your attention is directed to General L.R. 72(c), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 59(b), or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(b) if applicable, whereby written objections to any recommendation or order herein, or part thereof, may be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this recommendation or order. Objections are to be filed in accordance with the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s electronic case filing procedures. Failure to file a timely objection with the district court shall result in a waiver of a party’s right to appeal. If no response or reply will be filed, please notify the court in writing. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18" day of July, 2025.

BY THE COU.

an

United States Magistrate Judge