Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kush v. Bayview Loan Servicing

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 10, 2019

AMY KUSH, Plaintiff
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On July 31, 2018, the court issued a memorandum and order, (Docs. 3 and 4), and denied plaintiff Amy Kush's request for immediate injunctive relief seeking to prevent the August 3, 2018 Sheriff's sale of her property. (Doc. 1). The court also dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's due process claims in her complaint since the court lacked jurisdiction over them. Further, the court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint regarding only her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and her First Amendment retaliation claim, under 42 U.S.C. §1983, on or before August 17, 2018.

         After being granted an extension of time, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 20, 2018. (Doc. 11). Thereafter, motions to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) were filed by defendants Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC, (Doc. 19), Bayview Loan Servicing, (Doc. 23), and the Diocese of Scranton, (Doc. 42).

         On April 17, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued an Order directing the clerk of court to re-issue the summons as to defendants Luzerne County Sheriff and the Law Firm of McCabe Weisburg & Conway and, directing plaintiff to serve these two defendants with her amended complaint by May 15, 2019, (Doc. 49), since there was no return of service filed regarding these two defendants. The Order also advised plaintiff that if she failed to timely serve the stated two defendants, it would result in a recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this case.

         On April 30, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued three reports and recommendations recommending that the three motions to dismiss be granted and that all of the claims against defendants Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC, Bayview Loan Servicing, and the Diocese of Scranton be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed joint objections to all three of Judge Arbuckle's reports.

         On May 3, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time to serve defendants Luzerne County Sheriff and the Law Firm of McCabe Weisburg & Conway with her amended complaint, (Doc. 57), and on May 9, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion. (Doc. 59). Specifically, plaintiff was directed to serve defendants Luzerne County Sheriff and the Law Firm of McCabe Weisburg & Conway with her amended complaint by June 10, 2019. Plaintiff was also forewarned that her failure to timely serve these two defendants would result in the dismissal of these defendants from this case, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

         On June 6, 2019, the court issued a Memorandum and Order adopting Judge Arbuckle's reports and granting the motions to dismiss of defendants Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC, Bayview Loan Servicing, and the Diocese of Scranton. The court also dismissed all of the claims against these three defendants with prejudice. (Docs. 65 & 66). The case was then recommitted to Judge Arbuckle for further proceedings against the two remaining defendants.

         On June 19, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued a report recommending that defendants Luzerne County Sheriff and the Law Firm of McCabe Weisburg & Conway be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), since plaintiff failed to timely serve them as directed by the court.

         To date, plaintiff has not filed an objection to Judge Arbuckle's report and the time within which to do so has expired.

         II. STANDARD

         Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every Report and Recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

         III. DISCUSSION[1]

         Rule 4(m) requires district courts to dismiss a pending action when a plaintiff fails to timely serve the opposing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.