GRAVES v. SHELTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ROBERT GRAVES, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 1:23-cv-00074-JDL ) SCOTT SHELTON, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL The service of process deadline in this matter was May 22, 2023, which was ninety days after Robert Graves filed his pro se complaint. See ECF No. 1. On March 2, 2023, the Clerk’s Office sent a letter to Graves, informing him of a pro se guide to service of process on the Court’s website and pointing him to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See ECF No. 5. Nevertheless, Graves did not file proof of service on defendant Scott Shelton by the deadline, which prompted the Court to issue an order to show cause on May 23, 2023. See ECF No. 6. In that order, the Court directed Graves to “show good cause in writing no later than June 6, 2023, why . . . service was not timely made” and warning him that his case would “be dismissed” if he failed to do so. Id. Graves has not responded to the Court’s order to show cause, which warrants the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days 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 . . . .”); Diaz-Santos v. Dep’t of Educ., 108 F. App’x 638, 640 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting that district courts have inherent authority to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute). Graves’s status as an unrepresented litigant does not excuse his failures. See Elwell v. South Portland Police, No. 2:21-cv-00160-LEW, 2021 WL 5066106 , at *1 (D. Me. Oct. 31, 2021) (rec. dec.) (“While pro se litigants are accorded a certain degree of latitude, a party’s pro se status does not excuse him from complying with this Court’s orders as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules.” (cleaned up)), aff’d, ECF No. 9 (D. Me. Dec. 10, 2021). Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Graves’s complaint without prejudice. NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum and request for oral argument before the District Judge, if any is sought, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum and any request for oral argument before the District Judge shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s order. Dated: June 14, 2023 /s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge