Starkey v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DAVID B. STARKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILMINGTON 	SAVINGS 	FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, as Owner Trustee of the
Residential Credit Opportunities Trust VIII-
C, ET AL.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:24-cv-01076
JUDGE RICHARDSON
ORDER
Pending before the Court1 is a report and recommendation (Doc. No. 9, “R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge, which recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time
for filing objections has now expired.2
Absent any objection to the procedural history and underlying circumstances of this case
set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, the Court adopts that factual background in its
entirety, and includes it here for reference.
By Order entered September 13, 2024 (Docket Entry No. 4), the Court
referred this action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U. S.
C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the Local Rules of Court.
1 Herein, “the Court” refers to the undersigned District Judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge who
authored the R&R.
2 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file
any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff,
the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported
by mail. But even this extension does not help Plaintiff because the R&R was filed on October 9, 2025 and
as of October 30, 2025 Plaintiff has not filed any objections.
Case 3:24-cv-01076 Document 11 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

Pro se Plaintiff, David Starkey filed this action on September 6, 2024,
seeking relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 15 U. S. C.
§§ 1692, et seq.. Docket No. 1. On February 10, 2025, a show cause order was filed
giving the Plaintiff until March 7, 2025, to provide proof of service to Defendants
or show just cause why service has not been effectuated.
On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order and
summons were issued by the Clerk of Court for Defendants Marinosci Law Group
and Wilmington Savings Fund Society. To date no appearance on behalf of any
Defendants has been filed and the Plaintiff has not filed proof of service on the
named Defendants.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the
Defendant 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 Plaintiff for why
service has not been timely made, the Court “must dismiss” the action without
prejudice. Because more than 90 days have passed since this action was filed and
Defendant has not been served with process, the action must be dismissed without
prejudice in accordance with Rule 4(m). The Court notes that Plaintiff was
specifically advised by the February 10, 2025, Order that the action would be
dismissed if process was not timely made upon Defendant. Docket No. 5. The
Plaintiff has taken no action to advance this case since responding to the show cause
order and receiving the summons. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he must
still comply with the basic procedural rules applicable to all litigants. See Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F. 2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Aug. v. Caruso, 2015 WL 1299888, *6
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2015) (“pro se parties must follow the same rules of procedure
that govern other litigants”).
(Doc. No. 9 at 1-2). The Magistrate Judge concluded that this action should be dismissed without
prejudice, and specifically stated that the R&R “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.” (Id. at 2 n.1).
No party has filed objections to the R&R, and the time to file objections with the Court has
passed, as explained in a footnote above.
The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D.
Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Prop. Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1
Case 3:24-cv-01076 Document 11 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

(E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). A district judge is
not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of a report and
recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 322
F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Sec., No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL
6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
Absent objection, the R&R (Doc. No. 9) is adopted and approved, and this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s pending motion to stay writ of
possession (Doc. No. 6) is rendered MOOT.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and close the
file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01076 Document 11 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>