JONES v. WALMART STORES EAST LP et al

Filing 52

ORDER Plaintiff to file evidence of returned Summonses executed or waived and/or show cause no later than Monday, January 13, 2025, why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve Remaining Defenda nts. Plaintiff is hereby noticed that failure to respond to or comply with this Order will subject this case to dismissal, without prejudice, as to any such unserved Remaining Defendants, and without further notice or proceeding. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE W LOUIS SANDS on 1/6/2025. (ksl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
HEATHER JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALMART STORES EAST, LP d/b/a
WAL-MART STORE #899, JOHN DOE,
ABC CORPORATION and
XYZ ENTITY
Defendants.
_________________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO:
7:22-cv-134 (WLS)

ORDER
On December 2, 2022, Defendant Walmart Stores East, LP d/b/a Wal-Mart Store
#899 (“Walmart”) removed the above-captioned case to this Court. By Order (Doc. 50) and
Judgment (Doc. 51) entered December 4, 2024, this case was dismissed as to Walmart. The
docket reflects that Summonses were not issued for Defendants John Doe, ABC Corporation,
or XYZ Entity (“Remaining Defendants”). Nor does the docket reflect that Remaining
Defendants have waived service. To the extent Remaining Defendants represent persons or
entities whose identity was unknown at the time the Complaint was filed and/or removed to
this Court, Plaintiff has not amended the Complaint to identify such parties.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that:
If a defendant is not served within 90 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.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed notices that service of process has been properly
executed on Remaining Defendants or that service was waived.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file evidence of returned Summonses
executed or waived and/or show cause no later than Monday, January 13, 2025, why the
1

Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve Remaining Defendants. Plaintiff is
hereby noticed that failure to respond to or comply with this Order will subject this case to
dismissal, without prejudice, as to any such unserved Remaining Defendants, and without
further notice or proceeding.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of January 2025.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2