Holmes v. Hilton Savannah Desoto

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 4/12/2012. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
012 APR 12 fi1O:O3
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CHARLIE CALVIN HOLMES,

U.

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV410-140

V.
HILTON SAVANNAH DESOTO,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff's

employment

discrimination action. Plaintiff is pro se and proceeding
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) For the following reasons,
Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
The Magistrate Judge—through numerous orders (Docs. 3,
6, 13)—has advised Plaintiff of his responsibility to
actively pursue this case. The United States Marshal has
both forwarded a request for waiver of service and
personally served the named Defendant, yet Defendant has
not responded. (Doc. 12.) As the Magistrate Judge
previously suggested, the Court suspects that Plaintiff has
served the wrong entity. (Doc. 13 at 1.) On March 22,
2012, Plaintiff was afforded an additional opportunity to
"furnish sufficient information to the Marshal to allow

service upon [Defendant] before dismissing this action for
failure to effect timely service." (Doe. 13 at 2.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with this
information.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a
plaintiff to serve a defendant with a summons and a copy of
the complaint within 120 days of filing the complaint.
Upon failure to timely serve a defendant, the Court must
dismiss "that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time." Fed. IL Civ. P. 4(m). This
Court has previously ordered Plaintiff to furnish
sufficient information to the Marshal to allow service upon
Defendant (Doe. 13), a task Plaintiff failed to accomplish.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he
is "entitled to rely on the court officers and the United
States Marshals to effect proper service where such failure
is not due to fault [of Plaintiff] ." Fowler v. Jones, 899
F.2d 1088, 1095 (11th Cir. 1990) However, Plaintiff "may
not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such
service. At a minimum [Plaintiff] should request service
upon the appropriate [Defendant] and attempt to remedy any
apparent service defects of which
knowledge."

[Plaintiff]

has

Id. (emphasis added); see also Sellers v.

United States, 902 F.2d 598, 602 (7th Cir. 1990) ("dilatory

conduct by [Plaintiff] in supplying [the United States
Marshal with] identifying information flunks the good-cause
requirement" of Rule 4 (iii)) . While Plaintiff is entitled to
some protections as a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis, it is neither the job nor the duty of this Court
to litigate Plaintiff's case. Simply, after notice from
the Court, Plaintiff did not timely provide a current
address for Defendant where service can be effected.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (m) , this
Court must dismiss the action.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk of

Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED this

/2day of April 2012.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, R.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3