Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-00610
06-05-2023
STEPHEN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. LAUREL HARRY, Defendant.
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(RAMBO, J.)
This is a pro se civil rights action, initiated upon the filing of the complaint in this matter on April 26, 2022, in which Plaintiff Stephen Wilson (“Wilson”) brings claims against Defendant Laurel Harry, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institute at Camp Hill (“SCI-Camp Hill”). (Doc. 1). On April 27, 2022, summons were issued by the Court and provided to Wilson for service on Harry. (Doc. 2). On December 14, 2022, as Wilson had failed to serve the summons or the complaint, the Court ordered Wilson to show cause, on or before December 27, 2022, as to why service had not been made within the 90-day period previously ordered by the Court. (Doc. 3). On May 15, 2023, as Wilson had failed respond to the Court's Order, the Court issued a second Order, to both Wilson and his counsel, directing him to show cause as to why proof of service of the summons or the complaint has not been filed. (Doc. 4). The Court notified Wilson that unless good cause is shown, on or before May 29, 2023, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 4). To date, Wilson has not indicated that service of summons or the complaint was made. Further, Wilson has not communicated with the Court since he filed the complaint on April 26, 2022. (Doc. 1). Service of process is not a mere technicality, and without it, the Court lacks jurisdiction. SeeBlack v.Dublin EMS, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-1340, 2017 WL 1150661, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2017).
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the instant action by DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over the named Defendant, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this action.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated June 5, 2023. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.