You're viewing Docket Item 38 from the case Arant v. JP Morgan Chase et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-01386-JCM-GWF Document 38 Filed 02/13/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2:12-CV-1386 JCM (GWF)

FRANK ARANT,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

ORDER

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley (doc.

# 35) advising that plaintiff Frank Arant’s complaint be dismissed for lack of proper service. Plaintiff

Frank Arant filed objections (doc. # 36) to which defendants responded (doc. # 37).
I.

Legal standard

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United

States magistrate judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1–4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR IB 3–2.

Upon the filing of such objections, the district court must make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); LR IB 3–2(b). The

district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge. Id.

However, the district court need not conduct a hearing to satisfy the statutory requirement
that the district court make a “de novo determination.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674

(1980) (observing that there is “nothing in the legislative history of the statute to support the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:12-cv-01386-JCM-GWF Document 38 Filed 02/13/14 Page 2 of 2

contention that the judge is required to rehear the contested testimony in order to carry out the

statutory command to make the required ‘determination’”).
II.

Discussion

Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation advises that the complaint be dismissed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because plaintiff failed to effect proper service

upon defendants within 120 days.

Plaintiff admits that he has not properly served defendants, but indicates that he was confused

as to the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also states that he would like

to amend his complaint, and that he will re-file and properly serve defendants if he is given leave to

do so.

Accordingly,
After having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the report objected to,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Foley’s

report and recommendation (doc. # 35) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff Frank Arant’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. # 25) is DENIED as

moot.

DATED February 13, 2014.




UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 2 -