Solomon v. Fredrickson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DENNIS SOLOMON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:20-cv-11894-JDL ) FRANK FREDERICKSON, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Plaintiff Dennis Solomon moves pro se (ECF No. 137) for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and for an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1(a)(3). United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision on the motion with the Court on August 4, 2022 (ECF No. 145), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2022) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Solomon filed an objection (ECF No. 147) on August 17, 2022. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 145) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and Solomon’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 137) is DENIED. Additionally, I previously ordered (ECF No. 136) Solomon to within 21 days: (1) file proof that he properly served each remaining defendant or (2) show good cause in writing as to why service was not timely made and provide an explanation of the

efforts that he has made to effectuate service as to each remaining defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). Solomon was warned that failure to comply with this order would result in the dismissal of his complaint as to those defendants. Solomon

instead filed a Motion to Stay Proceeding and Service of Additional Defendants (ECF No. 139) requesting that my order be stayed pending the resolution of his Motion for Relief from Judgment. Solomon’s request for a stay was denied (ECF No. 146) by Magistrate Judge Nivison on August 5, 2022. Because Solomon has failed to comply with my order to provide proof of service or to show good cause in writing why service was not timely made, it is hereby ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 127) is DISMISSED as to all remaining defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m);

Cintrón-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 525-26 (1st Cir. 2002) (“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (listing a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order). SO ORDERED. Dated this 25th day of August, 2022.

/s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE