The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN )
)
v. ) NO. 3:22-cv-00580
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY )
MANAGEMENT, et al. )
TO: Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., United States District Judge
R E P O R T A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered October 25, 2022 (Docket Entry Nos. 14
and 15), the Court referred this prisoner civil rights action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings. For the reasons set out below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this
action be dismissed without prejudice.
Jeffrey Scott Brown (APlaintiff@) is a former inmate of the Montgomery County Jail
(“Jail”). He filed this pro se and in forma pauperis lawsuit on August 3, 2022, while an inmate
at the Jail, but he is no longer incarcerated. See Change of Address Notice (Docket Entry
No. 13). Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 based on allegations that his
constitutional rights were violated at the Jail. Upon initial review, the Court found that Plaintiff
stated arguable claims against three defendants and directed, the Clerk to send to Plaintiff blank
service packets, which he was to complete and return within 30 days. See October 25, 2022,
Order (Docket Entry No. 15).
Upon Plaintiff’s failure to return the service packets as directed, the Court gave Plaintiff a
deadline of January 20, 2023, to return a completed service packet for Defendant Joe Thomas
and for the two “John/Jane Doe” defendants if he had identified them, or to provide a list of
specific requests for documents, information, or questions that are necessary to identify the
“Doe” Defendants. See Order entered December 21, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 16). Plaintiff
was advised that his failure to comply with this Order would result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to serve the defendants. Id.
To-date, Plaintiff has not returned completed service packets or responded in any manner to the
Court’s directives.
Rule 4(m) requires that the defendants be served with process within 90 days of the date
this action was filed and provides that, in the absence of a showing of good cause by the plaintiff
for why service has not been timely made, the Court "must dismiss" the action without prejudice.
Because the defendants in this case have not been served with process within the time period set
out in Rule 4(m), this action should be dismissed.
It is also well settled that Federal trial courts have the inherent power to manage their
own dockets, Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1961), and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure permits the Court to dismiss an action upon a showing of a clear record of
delay, contumacious conduct, or failure to prosecute by the plaintiff. See Carter v. City of
Memphis, Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff=s failure to respond in any
manner to the Court’s directives indicates that he has lost interest in prosecuting his case.
2
RECOMMENDATION!
For the reasons set out above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the
specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See Rule
72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Failure to file
written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the
District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 US.
140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response to the
objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal Rule
72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.02(b).
Respectfully submitted,
cake Dz. TI
nited States Magistrate Judge
' This Report and Recommendation provides notice to Plaintiff of the Court’s intention to
sua sponte dismiss the action, and the fourteen-day period for filing objections provides him with
the opportunity to show good cause why the action should not be dismissed.