Marion v. Inman et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 18 Motion for Alternate Service. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORLANDO MARION

LAW OFFICES
Robert S. Drazin, P.L.L.C.
2000 TOWN CENTER  SUITE 810  SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48075  [phone]

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-12467

vs.

Hon. Denise Page Hood

DETROIT POLICE OFFICER MARCELLUS INMAN,
BADGE NO.
DETROIT POLICE OFFICER WILLIE WILLIAMS
BADGE NO. 3155
DETROIT POLICE OFFICER J. MCKEE
BADGE NO. 4434
THE CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation,
In each of their official and individual capacities,
jointly and severally,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________/
STANLEY I. OKOLI (P73722)
JAMES D. NOSEDA (P52536)
Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for City of Detroit,Mckee
26555 Evergreen Rd, Suite 1500
Williams and Inman.
Southfield, MI 48076
660 Woodward Ave, Suite 1800
P- [phone] F- [phone]
Detroit, MI 48226
[e-mail]
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
_____________________________________________________________________/
ORDER

In this case, the Plaintiff, Orlando Marion, contends that the Defendant, Three employees
of the Detroit Police Department caused him to suffer physical injuries and emotional distress as

the result of an alleged unwarranted physical altercation. The complaint was filed on June 7,
2012, followed by the issuance of a summons.

Currently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff on October 23, 2012, in which he
seeks to obtain an extension of the time to effectuate service of the summons and complaint upon
the Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the
ROMANO LAW, PLLC
26555 EVERGREEN, SUITE 1500  SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48076  [phone]

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.”). In support of this request, Marion states that the
failure to serve the Defendant prior to the expiration of the 120-day time period was the result of
Defendant evading service that only came to his attention several days after the time to effect
service had expired. Thus, he requests that the Court grant him an additional month in which to
affect service.

2

Service was attempted upon Defendant, Marcellus Inman prior to the 120-day time
period. Finding that the requested extension will not prejudice the Defendant and that no useful
purpose would be served by requiring Plaintiff to file the complaint anew, the Court will grant
his request. He must perfect service within one month of the date of this order. Failure to do so,
absent a timely and well-supported motion for a further extension, may result the dismissal of
this lawsuit. This order will serve as the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m) and E.D. Mich.
ROMANO LAW, PLLC
26555 EVERGREEN, SUITE 1500  SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48076  [phone]

LR 41.2.

s/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 1, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on
this date, November 1, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager, [phone]

3