Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hause v. Vetter

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

January 26, 2015

Stephen Mark Hause, Plaintiff,
v.
Lt. Jeremy Vetter, Major Jones, James Metts, CO Haldane Bastain, Michael Hudson, Sgt. Travis Felder, and Sgt. Melissa K. Lyons, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.

This action was filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendants have filed with the Court a Suggestion of Death of the Plaintiff in accordance with Rule 25(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendants served the Suggestion of Death by mailing a copy of the same to the Plaintiff's next of kin and/or successor on October 21, 2014. Pursuant to Rule 25, any motion for substitution of parties must be made within ninety (90) days after the death is suggested on the record; otherwise, the Court shall dismiss the action as to the deceased party. Here, the Suggestion of Death was filed October 16, 2014, and the certificate of service was filed on October 21, 2014; therefore, any motion to substitute parties was required to have been filed by January 20, 2015.

The undersigned is advised by the Clerk's office that no further filings or documentation have been received on behalf of the Plaintiff in this file.[1] Since no motion for substitution of parties has been filed, the undersigned recommends dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. See also Rule 25, Fed.R.Civ.P.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the Plaintiff at his last known address, as well as to Plaintiff's mother, Edith Hause, at the address shown in the file. The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.