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.

Seals v. Yellow Cab

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

January 8, 2015

Lewis James Seals, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
YELLOW CAB, d/b/a CHECKER CAB, PREMIER TRANSPORTATION, HAM SMYTHE IV, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE SUA SPONTE

JOHN T. FOWLKES, Jr., District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Lewis James Seals, Jr.'s pro se Complaint against Defendants Yellow Cab, d/b/a Check Cab, Premier Transportation, Ham Smythe IV, et al., that was filed on December 13, 2013. (ECF No. 1). On December 17, 2013, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636. (ECF No. 3). On July 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to provide the Clerk of Court addresses of Defendants Premier Transportation (d/b/a Yellow Cab and Checker Cab) and Ham Smythe within fourteen (14) days so that the Clerk could issue service of process and the Marshal could deliver copies to the Defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) and 4(h). (ECF No. 4). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with that Order.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show Cause on November 10, 2014, directing Plaintiff to Show Cause within fourteen (14) days why the Magistrate Judge should not recommend that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (ECF No. 5). The record indicates that on January 8, 2015, the Order to Show Cause was returned to the Clerk of Court's office as undeliverable.[1] (ECF No. 8). As such, Plaintiff has failed to respond. On December 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered her report and recommendation, recommending that the case be dismissed sua sponte. (ECF No. 7). To date, no objections have been filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Congress passed 28 U.S.C. §636(b) "to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts by permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates." See e.g. Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.App'x. 308, 311, 2003 WL 21321184 (6th Cir. 2003) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A district court normally applies a clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard of review for nondispositive preliminary measures. See U.S. v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001).

III. ANALYSIS

In her report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff's case because Plaintiff: 1) has failed to provide information necessary to serve the Defendants in a timely manner and, 2) has failed to comply with a court order requiring him to provide such information.[2] Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 48 (1991) citing, Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32 (1962)). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any interest in prosecuting this case. The case has remained dormant while Plaintiff has not taken any action in over one year, since the initial date of filing his complaint on December 13, 2013. Therefore, after reviewing the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the entire record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and orders the case dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.