United States District Court, D. Maine
PIERRE A. VINCENT, Plaintiff,
BOB BURTON, et als., Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, Jr., Chief District Judge.
On March 17, 2014, Pierre A. Vincent filed a complaint in this Court against Bob Burton and Colleen Cothran with whom Mr. Vincent was employed at the United States Postal Service. Compl. (ECF No. 1). As the Recommended Decision discusses, Mr. Vincent has not yet properly served either Mr. Burton or Ms. Cothran with the Complaint. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13). Even though the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint based on a lack of proper service of process, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the motion to dismiss, grant a motion to quash, and enter an order extending the time for Mr. Vincent to effect service. Id. at 3. The Defendants objected on only one point: that although the Magistrate Judge recommended that the time for service of process be extended, he did not recommend a particular amount of time. Defs.' Limited Objection to Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 16).
It is correct that the Magistrate Judge did not recommend a time limit for service of process, preferring instead to leave that issue to this Court. The Court therefore imposes the following deadline on Mr. Vincent: proof of proper service of the Complaint within the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 must be made by January 5, 2015. If Mr. Vincent has not filed documents by January 5, 2015 confirming that he has made proper service of process by January 5, 2015, the pending Complaint will be subject to dismissal upon motion by Defendants.
The Court performed a de novo review of the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge and it concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision regarding the denial of the motion to dismiss, the granting of the motion to quash, and the granting of the motion to extend time. The Court only modifies the Recommended Decision as follows: that the time for Pierre A. Vincent to effect service of process upon the Defendants shall be extended to January 5, 2015 and if Mr. Vincent fails to file proof of proper service of process by that date, the Complaint will be subject to dismissal upon motion of the Defendants.
The Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Court DENIES the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss;
(2) The Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Quash; and
(3) The Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Extend Time and allows the Plaintiff until January 5, 2015 to file proof of proper service of process ...