IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

DAVID B. GRAY,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:24-cv-51

v.

CFO JOE STEWART, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDER After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's July 1, 2024, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 12), to which plaintiff objected, (doc. 13). Plaintiff’s Objection does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s determination that he failed to serve any defendant in this case within Federal Rule 4(m)’s deadline. (See generally doc. 13, pp. 1-2.) He states that he was confused about the addresses where he might serve several defendants. (Id.) None of the information in his Objection undermines the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he has failed to show the required “good cause” for his failure to timely serve any defendant. (See doc. 12 at 2-3 (citing, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs,

(11th Cir. 2007)).) The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, after a de novo review of Gray’s Complaint and the pleadings in this case, that there are no discernable “other circumstances” that would warrant an extension of the Rule 4(m) deadline. (Doc. 12, p. 3 (citing doc. 7-1, pp. 13-20)); see also Lepone-Dempsey,

. Plaintiff’s Objection is, therefore, OVERRULED. (Doc. 13.) Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice. (Doc. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of July, 2024.

R. STAN BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA