Summary
adopting R&R concluding that pro se plaintiff's service of process on the law firm receptionist was insufficient as service for two lawyers who worked at the firm or on the firm itself and dismissing the case without prejudice
Summary of this case from Hubbard v. Citi Mortg., Inc.Opinion
Civil File No. 11-141 (MJD/SER).
June 23, 2011
Richard James Stuke, pro se.
Keith S. Moheban, Leonard Street and Deinard, PA, Counsel for Defendants.
ORDER
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated May 10, 2011 [Docket No. 42] and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated May 20, 2011 [Docket No. 58]. Plaintiff has filed objections.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Rau dated May 10, 2011, and May 20, 2011.
On May 20, 2011, after the second Report and Recommendation was filed, Plaintiff submitted a number of documents, found at Docket No. 60, including an acknowledgment from the Minnesota Secretary of State, dated May 19, 2011, of the receipt of documents to be served on the "Union Gospel Mission c/o Leonard Street and Deinard." Leonard Street and Deinard is not authorized to accept service on behalf of the Union Gospel Mission; nor is there evidence that the documents served included a valid Summons and Complaint. None of the documents submitted by Plaintiff demonstrate proper service of any of the Defendants in this matter by the May 29, 2011 deadline. Nor do any of the documents mailed to Leonard Street and Deinard, and filed by Defendants at Docket No. 69, constitute a valid Summons and Complaint. Therefore, the Court adopts the May 20 Report and Recommendation's finding that Plaintiff has failed to serve any of the Defendants in this matter in the time allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steven Rau's Report and Recommendation dated May 10, 2011 [Docket No. 42].
2. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steven Rau's Report and Recommendation dated May 20, 2011 [Docket No. 58].
3. Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment [Docket Nos. 8, 11] are DENIED.
4. Plaintiff's Motions for Declaratory Judgment [Docket Nos. 7, 23, 24, 28] are DENIED.
5. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 22, 2011