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, pro se,
asserting various claims against the named Defendants. The
docket reflects that the Complaint was filed on February 6,
2019, and the summons were issued on May 1, 2019.
Order filed April 30, 2019, Plaintiff was advised that she is
responsible for service of process. See Order (Court
Docket No. 8). 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.”
the time for service began to run on May 1, 2019, and the
ninety (90) day period for service provided by Rule expired
on July 30, 2019. See Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d
605, 608-609 (4th Cir. 2010) [Tolling during
initial review]. Therefore, unless Plaintiff has made proper
service on the Defendants, this case is subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff 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 being dismissed.
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
Robin 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 ...