Zoey Paint Corporation v. Boston Ship Repair, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ZOEY PAINT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOSTON SHIP REPAIR, LLC,
Defendant.
No. 1:25-cv-12044-JDH
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HEDGES, M.J.
The complaint in the above-entitled action was filed on July 21, 2025. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Local Rule 4.1(b), Plaintiff was required to serve the
summons and complaint by October 20, 2025.
On October 21, 2025, I ordered that within twenty-one days, Plaintiff must file proof of
service or show good cause as to why service had not been made. Docket No. 4. I further stated
that failure to respond to the order or show cause may result in the court recommending to a
District Judge that the case be dismissed. Id.
As of today, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service or shown good cause as to why
service has not been made. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that the District Judge DISMISS this
action without prejudice. The Court directs the case to be returned to the Clerk’s Office for
REASSIGNMENT to a District Judge for further proceedings.
Case 1:25-cv-12044-JEK Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
SO ORDERED. 1
Dated: November 14, 2025
/s/ Jessica D. Hedges
United States Magistrate Judge
1 The parties are advised that under the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and
Rule 3 of the Rules for United States Magistrate Judges in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, any party who objects to these proposed findings and
recommendations must file specific written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court within
fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections must
specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which
objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that the
United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), will preclude further appellate review of the District Court’s order
based on this Report and Recommendation. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163,
168 (1st Cir. 2016); see also Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st
Cir. 1988).
Case 1:25-cv-12044-JEK Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2