Humphrey et al v. Cain et al

Filing 4

ORDER directing Plaintiff to explain the reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service within fourteen days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/28/2016. (maa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
MICHAEL L. HUMPHREY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHEATAM, P.A.; CAIN, P.A.;
MILLS, P.A.; MENDOZA, Dr.;
and, ALSTON, Dr.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 116-117

ORDER
_________
Plaintiff filed the above-captioned case on July 18, 2016, and because he was
proceeding pro se, the Court provided him with basic instructions regarding the development
and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 3.) The Court explained Plaintiff is responsible for
serving each defendant and explained how service could be accomplished. (Id. at 1-2.) The
Court specifically informed Plaintiff that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), he had ninety days
from the date of the Court’s August 25th Order to accomplish service and failure to
accomplish service could result in dismissal of individual defendants or the entire case. (Id.
at 2 & n. 2.) Now, the ninety days allowed for service have elapsed, and Plaintiff has
provided no evidence of service on any of the defendants.
Rule 4(m) empowers courts with discretion to extend the time for service when a
plaintiff demonstrates good cause for failing to timely serve process or any other
circumstances warranting an extension of time. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654,

662-63 (1996); Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005);
Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to explain the
reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why this case should not be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to attach a copy of Rule 4(m) to this Order for Plaintiff’s perusal.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

2