Shedd v. Murfreesboro Social Security Office, 2836 Saint Patrick Court Murfreesboro, TN 37128

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BRITTNEY SHEDD, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-0047
) 	Chief Judge Campbell /Frensley
MURFREESBORO SOCIAL 	)
SECURITY OFFICE, 	)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11)
which was filed on September 19, 2025. The Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion or this
Court’s show cause order entered on October 9, 2025. Docket No. 13. The Defendant originally
filed a motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. Docket No. 6. The Court denied
the motion without prejudice and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to effect service in this matter
to March 14, 2025. Docket No. 10. On September 19, 2025, the Defendant renewed its motion to
dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff had not served or attempted to litigate the merits of this case
even after being given an extension to perfect service. Docket No. 11.
The Plaintiff has not filed any proof of service nor otherwise taken any action to advance
this litigation and has not filed any pleadings with the Court since September 13. 2024.
When a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline,
there is no basis for treating that party more favorably than a party who is represented. Id.
Additionally, Courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars
of cases that have remained dormant because of inaction or dilatoriness of the party seeking relief.”
Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U. C. 626, 630 (1962).
Case 3:24-cv-00047 Document 14 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
From the docket, the Defendant has not been served in this case as required by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, the Plaintiff
has failed to address the issue of service in this case.
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 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 serve or even attempt to serve
the Defendants as directed or to otherwise take any activity in the case for over a year indicates
that she has lost interest in prosecuting her case.
For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned recommends that the motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 11) be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in
accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days
from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen
(14) days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any response to said
objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report
Case 3:24-cv-00047 Document 14 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00047 Document 14 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>