Williams v. Wainstein

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MICHAEL KEITH WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, 8:23CV136

v. ORDER KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN, MERRICK GARLAND, CHRISTOPHER WRAY, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, and CHARLES KABLE, JR.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the magistrate judge’s1 August 16, 2023, Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 17), recommending the Court dismiss this case “without prejudice for failure of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); NECivR 72.2. In making that recommendation, the magistrate judge described his efforts to help pro se plaintiff Michael Keith Williams (“Williams”) effect proper service under Rule 4 and Williams’s failure to do so. The magistrate judge also cited Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996), for the familiar proposition that proceeding pro se generally “does not excuse a party from complying with a court’s orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Section 636(b)(1) allows a party to object in writing to a magistrate judge’s “proposed findings and recommendations” regarding a dispositive matter “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the proposed disposition. Accord Fed. R.

1The Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); NECivR 72.2. The Clerk of Court mailed Williams a copy of the Findings and Recommendation on August 16, 2023. To date, he has not objected.

If a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings or recommendation, the Court must review those objections de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If no one objects, however, further review is unnecessary. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he failure to file objections eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the district court.”). Such is the case here.

Because Williams did not timely object to the magistrate judge’s sound Findings and Recommendation,

IT IS ORDERED: 1. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 17) is accepted. 2. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Dated this 6th day of September 2023.

BY THE COURT: te F. Rossiter, Jr. United States District Judge