Holmes v. Hilton Savannah Desoto

Filing 13

ORDER stating that plaintiff is directed to provide a current address where service can be effected upon the defendant within fourteen days of this Order. If plaintiff fails to provide the Court with this information, his complaint may be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 3/22/2012. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CHARLIE CALVIN HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILTON SAVANNAH DESOTO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV410-140

ORDER
The Marshal has both forwarded a request for waiver of service and
personally served the named defendant, yet it has not responded. (Doc.
12.) The Court suspects that plaintiff has served the wrong entity.
Likely, this employment discrimination action should have been filed
against the business that owns the hotel instead of the specific hotel
where plaintiff works.

1

The 120 days allowed to perfect service has long since expired. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m). By virtue of his in forma pauperis status, plaintiff is
“entitled to rely on the court officers and the United States Marshals to

1

Notably, plaintiff has not sought a default against the DeSoto Hilton.

effect proper service, and should . . . not be penalized for failure to effect
service where such failure is not due to fault on [plaintiff’s] part.”
Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1095 (11th Cir. 1990). However, “‘a

plaintiff may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service.
At a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate
defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent service defects of which
plaintiff has knowledge.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Rochon v.
Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987)); see also Sellers v. United
States, 902 F.2d 598, 602 (7th Cir. 1990) (“dilatory conduct by the

prisoner in supplying [the marshal with] identifying information flunks
the good- cause requirement” of Rule 4(m)).
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will afford him one
more opportunity to furnish sufficient information to the Marshal to
allow service upon defendant before dismissing this action for failure to
effect timely service. If plaintiff fails to provide an address where
defendant may be served in response to this Order, then dismissal of the
complaint will be appropriate under Rule 4(m). Accordingly, plaintiff is
DIRECTED to provide a current address where service can be effected

2

upon defendant within 14 days of this Order. If plaintiff fails to provide
the Court with this information, his complaint may be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 4(m).
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

UNITED S1YiThS MAGISTRAIE JUDGE
SOTJTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3