Matelic v. Mendoza

Filing 76


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN MATELIC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-13523 Plaintiff, DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN BENITO MENDOZA, Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff John Matelic filed an amended complaint adding David Taft as a Defendant. To date, Taft has not been served. Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is entitled to service by the United States Marshal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). However, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide an address at which a defendant may be served. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993); Herbert v. Roark, 2006 WL 1284695 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, will provide to the United States Marshal an address at which Defendant Taft can be served. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in a recommendation that Defendant Taft be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon timely receipt of Taft’s address, the U.S. -1- Marshal will serve Defendant Taft at that address by certified mail, return receipt requested, as authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) and M.C.R. § 2.105(A)(2). The U.S. Marshal may collect the usual and customary costs from Plaintiff after effectuating service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), that the time for service of the summons and complaint is extended to April 26, 2018. s/ R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: March 12, 2018 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on March 12, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. mail. s/Carolyn M. Ciesla Case Manager to the Honorable R. Steven Whalen -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?