Williams v. KBR INC

Filing 26

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint Without Prejudice. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 4/10/14. (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
GERALD B. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KBR, INC., and JOSEPH EVANS,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.: 1:13-CV-75 (WLS)

ORDER
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned case in this Court
nearly one year ago and paid the filing fee. (See Doc. 1.) Since that time Plaintiff has
been given five opportunities to serve process in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). (See Docs. 3, 5, 7, 15, 25.) Plaintiff asserted that he mailed
process to various addresses and paid for process to be served on at least one occasion,
but was unable to properly serve process. (See Docs. 4, 6, 10, 17, 19, 21.) Because
Plaintiff repeatedly failed to serve process in accordance with the FRCP, he was ordered
to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc.
20.) In his response to the Court’s order, Plaintiff noted his unsuccessful attempts at
service and requested that the United States Marshal Service assist him in serving
process.

(Doc. 21.)

On February 24, 2014, the Court provided Plaintiff with an

additional 30 days to serve process, and notified Plaintiff that, for a fee, the United
States Marshal Service would serve process on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Doc. 25.) At that
time, Plaintiff was noticed that, at the end of the 30-day period, his case would be
dismissed without prejudice unless manifest injustice would result. (Id.) That time
period ended on March 26, 2014. At that time, Plaintiff had not provided any indication
that he had served process on Defendants in accordance with the FRCP. (See generally
Docket.)
1

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court must dismiss a case
without prejudice if the defendants are not properly served with process within 120
days after the complaint is filed unless that time period is extended by the Court or
good cause is shown. Also, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may
sua sponte dismiss a case “to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases
and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Court.” Brutus v. I.R.S., 393 F.
App’x 682, 683-84 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Equity Lifestyle Props, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing &
Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009)). As mentioned above, nearly
one year has passed since the complaint was filed and the time period to serve process
has been extended five times. When ordered to show cause, Plaintiff asserted that he
made several unsuccessful attempts at serving process and requested that the United
States Marshal Service serve process for him.
opportunity and did not serve process.

However, Plaintiff was given that

The Court has received no further

communication from Plaintiff in this matter. (See generally Docket.) Because Plaintiff
has failed to serve process and failed to timely comply with orders of the Court on five
occasions, thereby unduly delaying the disposition of this matter, the Court finds that
dismissal under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) are appropriate.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of April 2014.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Because the Court dismisses this action without prejudice, it is not necessary for the Court to find that
the delay was willful and that lesser sanctions would not suffice. See Brutus v. I.R.S., 393 F. App’x 682,
684 (11th Cir. 2010).

1

2