Matelic v. Mendoza
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO PROVIDE ADDRESS AND EXTENDING SUMMONS - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-13523
DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN
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.
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
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
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?