Rockette v. Carpenter Management

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: October 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00406
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

TERRY ROCKETTE PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:23-CV-406-MPM-RP

CARPENTER MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The pro se plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter on October 23, 2023, and he filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2024. On July 30, 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims against the defendants Terri Vaughn, Cleleste Goodson, Lana Hankins, Laura Hankins, Chezelle Ross, Jason Mangrum, Daniel M. Martin; Paul Carpenter, Walter Brooks, Toby Britt, and Water Valley, MS should not be dismissed for failure to serve process upon these defendants within the time permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF #46. In response, the plaintiff requested additional time to serve said defendants, and the court granted the plaintiff an extension until September 12, 2024 to serve process on said defendants. ECF #49. As of today’s date, so far as the record indicates, the plaintiff has not served process on any of said defendants. Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants Terri Vaughn, Cleleste Goodson, Lana Hankins, Laura Hankins, Chezelle Ross, Jason Mangrum, Daniel M. Martin; Paul Carpenter, Walter Brooks, Toby Britt, and Water Valley, MS be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Objections to this report and recommendation are required to be in writing and must be filed within fourteen (14) days of this date and “a party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within [14] days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court . . . .” Douglass v. United States Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted). SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of October, 2024. /s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE