IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

JEREMIAH W. GREEN *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-667-WKW

 (WO)

AJA ROBERTS, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 6, 2007 the court entered an order which notified Plaintiff that service was

attempted but not perfected on Defendant Weldon because she was unknown at the address

provided by Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 52.) Plaintiff was advised that if a person has not been

served, he or she is not a party to this lawsuit except in very unusual circumstances. See

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 4(m). Plaintiff was, therefore, directed to furnish the

Clerk’s Office with a correct address for Defendant Weldon. The above-referenced order

further advised Plaintiff that the court would not continue to monitor this case to ensure that

the defendants Plaintiff wished to sue had been served. Plaintiff was informed that this was

his responsibility. The order also informed Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the

court’s directives, Defendant Weldon would not be served, she would not be considered a

party to this action, and this case would proceed only against those defendants on whom

service was perfected. 

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 61 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Plaintiff has filed no response to the court’s March 6, 2007. The court, therefore,

finds that service of the complaint, as amended, has never been perfected on Defendant

Weldon and no exceptional circumstances exist which warrant her inclusion as a defendant

in this case. Accordingly, Defendant Weldon is due to be dismissed as a party to this

complaint. See Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Weldon be DISMISSED

2. Defendant Weldon be DISMISSED as a party to this case; and

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the

undersigned for further proceedings.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before July 23, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The

parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore,

it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 61 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
-3-

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 10th day of July 2007. 

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 61 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 3