Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-144
07-24-2017
ROSA E. MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. LAREDO TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 657, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 10, 2017, Petitioner Rosa E. Munoz filed an amended complaint, through which she joined Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 657 ("Teamsters"). (Dkt. 34). Petitioner has not served Teamsters. Because she has not done so, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that her claims against Teamsters be dismissed.
Discussion
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f a defendant is not served within 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 or order that service be made within a specified time." On June 15, 2017, the Court notified Petitioner that if she did not serve Teamsters by July 6, 2017 or show good cause for her failure to do so, the Magistrate Judge would recommend that her claims against Teamsters be dismissed. (Dkt. 54). On July 7, 2017, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why her claims against Teamsters should not be dismissed. (Dkt. 62).
Petitioner did not respond to the June 15th notice or the July 7th show-cause order. As of the date of this Report, 164 days have elapsed since Petitioner joined Teamsters. Because Petitioner failed to serve Teamsters within Rule 4(m)'s 90-day deadline and did not show cause why her claims against Teamsters should not be dismissed, the District Court should dismiss Petitioner's claims against Teamsters.
Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court DISMISS Petitioner's claims against Defendant Teamsters.
Objections
The parties may object to this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report, the District Court will review de novo the findings or recommendations to which the party objects. § 636(b)(1)(C). The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). If a party does not timely object, the party forfeits its right to District Court review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). If the parties do not object and then the District Court accepts this Report's findings and legal conclusions, on appeal such findings and conclusions will be reviewed only for plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Report to Petitioner by any receipted means.
SIGNED this 24th day of July, 2017.
/s/_________
GUILLERMO R. GARCIA
United States Magistrate Judge