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.

Railroad Maintenance and Industrial Health and Welfare Fund v. Lovelace

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION


March 4, 2009

RAILROAD MAINTENANCE AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EDWARD J. LOVELACE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Byron G. Cudmore, U.S. Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed its Complaint herein and paid all filing fees in full. However, Plaintiff has been unable to perfect service on Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) directs that a Plaintiff must serve a Defendant within 120 days of filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff was reminded of the 120-day rule by this Court's Text Order of January 13, 2009 and advised if service was not perfected, the case was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. On January 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Status Report (d/e 5) setting forth its unsuccessful service attempts and requesting additional time. On February 2, 2009, by Text Order, the Court allowed Plaintiff a final extension until March 1, 2009 to perfect service. As of this date Plaintiff has failed to provide documentation that service upon Defendant has been accomplished in compliance with Rule 4(m). In addition, Plaintiff has failed to timely seek an additional extension for good cause shown. The Court recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff is advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Court within ten working days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). See Local Rule 72.2.

BYRON G. CUDMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20090304

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



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.