TAYLOR v. US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
ORDER DISMISSING 1 Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/6/2015. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ERICA D. TAYLOR,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-286 (MTT)
In this case, the Plaintiff has sued the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
alleging use of excessive force and false arrest. (Doc. 1). This Court entered an Order
on December 5, 2014, instructing the Plaintiff to advise the Court, no later than
December 22, 2014, as to the status of her efforts to serve the Defendant, and to show
cause why her case should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure
to serve the Defendant. (Doc. 6). On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff responded with
a letter that she served the Defendant by first class mail on October 31, 2014, but did
not specify the contents of what was served on the Defendant. (Doc. 7). In other
words, there was still no evidence in the record of service on the Defendant. This is not
the proper method of service pursuant to Rule 4(i), which requires a plaintiff serving an
agency of the United States to deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to both the
United States attorney in the district where the action is brought and to the Attorney
General, in addition to serving the agency. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)-(2). Instead of
dismissing the complaint for insufficient service of process, the Court advised the
Plaintiff that her complaint would be dismissed if she did not perfect service within 21
days. The Plaintiff responded in a nearly identical fashion as she did to the Court’s
initial order. (Doc. 9). She simply specified that “[t]wo copies of Notice of Lawsuit and
two copies of waiver of summons” were sent to the Defendant but did not indicate that
she complied with Rule 4 and did not explain her failure to do so.
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court, after notice to the plaintiff, must dismiss the
action without prejudice if the defendant is not served within 120 days after the
complaint is filed, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, or the Court, in
its discretion, extends the time for service without a showing of good cause. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m).
The Plaintiff, having failed to explain why she has not properly served the
Defendant, has made no showing of good cause. Further, the Court finds no other
circumstances warrant an extension of time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of April, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?