IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
RICHARD MATTHEWS, 
                   Plaintiff, 
v. 
DENISE MARSHALL, et al. 
                   Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
 
)                 Case No. 1:24-cv-0005 
)                
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
        
ORDER1 
BEFORE THE COURT is Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III’s Report and 
Recommendation (“R&R”), filed on December 3, 2025. (ECF No. 154.) Magistrate Judge 
Henderson’s R&R was preceded by his first Order to Show Cause, filed on July 7, 2025 (ECF 
No. 107); a status conference held in person on July 16, 2025 (ECF No. 107); Magistrate Judge 
Henderson’s Order Discharging the first Order to Show Cause, filed on July 16, 2025 (ECF No. 
114); Magistrate Judge Henderson’s second Order to Show Cause, filed on October 9, 2025 
(ECF No. 138); and Plaintiff Richard Matthews’ (“Plaintiff”) Response to Order to Show 
Cause, filed on October 23, 2025 (ECF No. 148).  
The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 34, 
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely and properly serve Defendants Jamale 
R. Griffin, Kathryn B. Jensen De Lugo, and Denese Marshall, and Defendant Ray Martinez in 
his official capacity. (ECF No. 154 at 155.) On December 16, 2025, Plaintiff Richard Marshall 
 
1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority 
as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 
Case: 1:24-cv-00005-RAM-EAH     Document #: 162     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 1 of 3
Matthews  v. Marshall 
Case No. 1:24-cv-0005 
Order 
Page 2 of 3 
 
filed timely Objections to the R&R.2 (ECF No. 82.) The Court, having conducted a de novo 
review of the record and having made an independent determination finding no error, will 
adopt the R&R.3 Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendation, filed on December 16, 2025, ECF No. 155, are OVERRULED; it is further  
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Henderson’s Report and Recommendation, filed on 
December 3, 2025, ECF No. 154, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if 
fully set forth herein; it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Defendants Jamale R. Griffin, 
Kathryn B. Jensen De Lugo, and Denese Marshall, and Defendant Ray Martinez in his official 
capacity are DISMISSED for failure to timely effect service; it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Defendant Ray Martinez in his 
unofficial capacity are permitted to PROCEED; it is further 
 
2 Plaintiff’s Objection appears to mainly argue that Plaintiff’s diligence in responding to the Court’s Order 
should constitute good cause to extend the service deadlines and that the filing of his Second Amended 
Complaint reset service deadlines. However, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended 
Complaint. (ECF No. 137.) Further, the record reflects numerous opportunities for Plaintiff to cure the service 
defects in this case. Plaintiff’s repeated failure to cure the service defects over an extended period of time 
cannot constitute good cause to extend the service deadlines further. Accordingly, the Court finds the 
Objections to be without merit.  
3 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to 
make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de 
novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 
1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the 
proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided 
on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s 
reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).  
Case: 1:24-cv-00005-RAM-EAH     Document #: 162     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 2 of 3
Matthews  v. Marshall 
Case No. 1:24-cv-0005 
Order 
Page 3 of 3 
 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case TERMINATED as to 
Defendants Jamale R. Griffin, Kathryn B. Jensen De Lugo, and Denese Marshall, and Defendant 
Ray Martinez in his official capacity only. 
 
Dated: March 31, 2026 
 
 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
_________ 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
Case: 1:24-cv-00005-RAM-EAH     Document #: 162     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 3 of 3