United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
Bristow Marchant, United States Magistrate Judge.
case has been filed by the Plaintiff alleging various claims
against the named defendants. The file reflects that the
Complaint was filed on March 26, 2018, and the summons were
issued on August 29, 2018.
Order filed August 29, 2018, Plaintiff was specifically
advised that she is responsible for service of process.
However, there is no evidence in the file that the Defendants
have ever been served with process in this case. Pursuant to
Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P., “[i]f a defendant is not
served within ninety (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 . . . but if the Plaintiff shows good cause
for the failure, the court must extend the time for service
for an appropriate period.” Here, the time for service
began to run on August 29, 2018, and the ninety (90) day
period for service provided by Rule expired on November 27,
filed reflects that Plaintiff requested an extension of time
on November 28, 2018 which was granted on November 29, 2018
extending her deadline for service until December 28, 2018.
Plaintiff then requested an additional extension of time on
December 21, 2018, which was granted on January 7, 2019.
Plaintiff's new deadline for service was January 18,
2019, and she was specifically advised that no further
extensions would be granted due to the age of the case, and
that if service was not effected by January 18, 2019, the
case would be recommended for dismissal. Therefore, unless
Plaintiff has made proper service on these Defendants, this
case is subject to dismissal.
is herein specifically advised and placed on notice that, in
response to this Report and Recommendation, she is to provide
the Court with proof of service on the Defendants, or present
good cause to the Court for any failure to serve the
Defendants, within ten (10) days of the filing of this Report
and Recommendation. Failure to do so will result in this case
response to this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff submits
to the Court proof of timely service on the Defendants, then
in that event IT IS ORDERED that this Report
and Recommendation be vacated, and that the
file be returned to the undersigned for further proceedings.
in the event Plaintiff fails to submit to the Court proof of
service on the Defendants, or to demonstrate good cause for
having failed to do so,  within the time granted herein, it is
recommended that this case be dismissed, without prejudice,
pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P.
parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
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).
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
L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box
835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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, 7 ...