Kemp v. Hobbs et al

Filing 43

ORDER dismissing party Nathan Huffman from the complaint, without prejudice, for failure to serve. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 7/16/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARVIN L. KEMP
v.

PLAINTIFF
1:12-cv-00003-JMM-JTK

RAY HOBBS, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff originally filed this action on January 9, 2012 (Doc. No. 2). The case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute on February 23, 2012 (Doc. No. 7, 8), and re-opened on March
5, 2012 (Doc. No. 13). Summons was returned, unexecuted with respect to Defendant Nathan
Huffman on March 22, 2012 (Doc. No. 22). Summons was reissued as to Huffman on April 11,
2012 (Doc. No. 31), but again returned, unexecuted, on May 17, 2012 (Doc. No. 38). By Order
dated June 11, 2012, the Court notified Plaintiff that FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) provides for a 120-day
time limit for effecting service on a defendant, and informed him of one final opportunity in
which to provide a present address or to obtain service on Defendant, within thirty days of the
date of the Order (Doc. No. 42). The Court further advised Plaintiff that failure to respond or
obtain service would result in the dismissal of Defendant Huffman from his Complaint. As of
this date, the Court has not received any additional information from the Plaintiff, and Defendant
Huffman has not been served with summons and a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint against him.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court
– on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
This Court’s June 11, 2012 Order constituted notification to the Plaintiff, within the

meaning of Rule 4, that service should be effected within a specified period of time. That time
has now expired, and therefore, absent any additional information from the Plaintiff concerning
Defendant Huffman’s address, the Court will dismiss Defendant Huffman from his complaint
without prejudice. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant Nathan Huffman is DISMISSED from
Plaintiff’s Complaint, without prejudice, for failure to serve.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16 day of July , 2012.

____________________________________
JAMES M. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE