IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JORDAN J. JAHEEM, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0663-CG-C

AIDT MARITIME TRAINING CENTER :

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a report and 

recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), on motion of the Court to 

dismiss this action pursuant Rules 4(m) and 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P. Upon 

consideration of the procedural background, the Magistrate Judge recommends 

that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff‘s complaint for failure to perfect service 

pursuant to Rule 4(m), FED. R. CIV. P., and for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Rule 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff initiated this action on December 30, 2015. (See Doc. 1). On 

March 7, 2016, the Clerk of the Court issued a summons to the Defendant. (Doc. 

4). On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Extension of Time to Serve 

Defendant (Doc. 5) and informed the Court that he attempted to serve the 

Defendant by certified mail, which was returned and refused, and that he 

intended to serve the Defendant through a private process server. Further, the 

Plaintiff requested that the Court extend the time to serve the Defendant by sixty 

(60) days. (See Doc. 5). On May 17, 2016, the Court issued an order (Doc. 6) 

Case 1:15-cv-00663-CG-C Document 9 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 4
granting the Plaintiff’s motion and extending the deadline to perfect service to 

July 18, 2016. On July 27, 2016, (“July Order”), the Court ordered the Plaintiff to 

“file a status report no later than August 3, 2016 showing cause why this case 

should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) due 

to the Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and obey this Court’s lawful 

orders.” (Doc. 7 at 1). That status report was to include “(a) proof of service for 

the Defendant; (b) waiver of service for the Defendant; or (c) whatever showing 

[the Plaintiff] deems necessary and sufficient as to why this action should not be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to effect 

service.” (Doc. 7 at 2). 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Failure to Perfect Service.

Rule 4(c)(1), FED. R. CIV. P., provides that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for 

having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) 

and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.”. Rule 

4(m), FED. R. CIV. P., provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days

(amended to ninety (90) days as of January 1, 2016) 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.”

In this case, Plaintiff was responsible for serving Defendant (see Doc. 4), 

not later than April 28, 2016, 120 days after the filing of the complaint. On motion 

of the Plaintiff, the deadline to serve the Defendant was extended, and the 

Plaintiff was ordered to file proof of service by July 18, 2016. As of the date of this 

Case 1:15-cv-00663-CG-C Document 9 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 4
order, 247 days after the filing of the complaint, proof of service has not been 

filed.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s 

complaint for failure to perfect service pursuant to Rule 4(m), FED. R. CIV. P.

B. Failure to Prosecute.

An action may be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or if she 

fails to comply with any court order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see also Link v. 

Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388-1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 

(1962) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of 

action for failure to prosecute); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family 

Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir. 1995) (“‘A district court has 

authority under Federal Rule[] of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss actions for 

failure to comply with local rules.’”).

Here, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the undersigned’s orders 

dated May 17, 2016, extending the deadline to file proof of service, and July 27, 

2016, ordering the Plaintiff to file a status report.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s 

complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P.

The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to assign this matter to a district 

court judge for consideration of this report and recommendation.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this 

document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 

Case 1:15-cv-00663-CG-C Document 9 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 4
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties should 

note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a 

magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the 

absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed 

determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or 

refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE and ORDERED this the 7th day of September, 2016.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00663-CG-C Document 9 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 4