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.

Chris Ann Darlington v. State of Illinois

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


May 10, 2011

CHRIS ANN DARLINGTON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANT.

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

E-FILED

Tuesday, 10 May, 2011 11:07:00 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On November 1, 2010, pro se Plaintiff filed her Complaint herein along with Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 2) and to Appoint Counsel (d/e 3). Those motions were denied by the undersigned by Text Order of November 2, 2010 as Plaintiff was employed and had sufficient income to pay the fee. All filing fees were paid in full by pro se Plaintiff on November 5, 2010. However, Plaintiff did not take steps 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. On March 1, 2011, the 120 days for service lapsed. Plaintiff was advised that service should be obtained on Defendant by March 1, 2011, by Text Order of February 9, 2011. Plaintiff was again advised of the need to perfect service by Text Order dated March 28, 2011 and given an extension to April 18, 2011, and was advised if service was not perfected, the case was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. As of this date, pro se Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 4(m). The Court recommends that pro se 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 fourteen 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.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to pro se Plaintiff at her last known address.

FOR THE COURT:

BYRON G. CUDMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20110510

© 1992-2011 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.