Robey v. Cleveland School District et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 49 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 7/8/2013. (psk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
WALTER S. ROBEY

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12CV101-SA-SAA

CLEVELAND SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants Jacqueline Thigpen, Maurice Lucas, Todd Fuller, Richard Boggs, George
Evans, and Harvey Jackson filed a Motion to Dismiss [17] as to their individual capacities. For
the reasons below, the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss said defendants as parties with
respect to their individual capacities.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff laid claim against the above defendants in both their individual and official
capacities on June 12, 2012, but only served the defendants in their official capacities. The above
defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for failure
to properly serve process on the defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff was granted an
extension of time by the presiding magistrate judge and given until February 23, 2013, to
effectuate service. As of March 6, 2013, the Court’s records showed that none of the defendants
had been served in regard to their individual capacities.

1

Plaintiff was warned that no further

extensions of time would be granted. Plaintiff has failed to indicate on the docket that such
service has been effectuated prior to this date.

Motion to Dismiss Standard
The burden rests on the plaintiff to ensure that defendants are properly served with
summons and a copy of the complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(1). Proper service must be made
within 120 days of filing a complaint or the action is subject to dismissal, without prejudice. FED.
R. CIV. P. 4(m). However, a district court may, in its discretion, decide to dismiss the case or
extend time for service of process. Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir.1996).
Analysis and Discussion
In this case, Plaintiff has already been granted an extension of time to cure the defects of
service; he was given until February 23, 2013. Plaintiff was warned that no further extensions of
time would be granted, yet Plaintiff has shown no attempt to effectuate service. As noted
previously, Plaintiff served defendants as to their official capacities, but not as to their individual
capacities. Because the deadline set for Plaintiff to serve the defendants in their individual
capacities is well past, the defendants Thigpen, Lucas, Fuller, Boggs, Evans, and Jackson will be
dismissed from the case with regard to their individual capacities.
Conclusion
Defendants Thigpen, Lucas, Fuller, Boggs, Evans, and Jackson’s Motion to Dismiss [17]
is GRANTED in respect to their individual capacities; therefore, Thigpen, Lucas, Fuller, Boggs,
Evans, and Jackson will be dismissed as parties in their individual capacities. They will remain
defendants in their official capacities.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of July, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The clerk’s notice inadvertently omitted Maurice Lucas from the list of defendants who were not served
individually. Because no proof of service or other evidence suggesting service has ever been submitted with regard
to Maurice Lucas, the Court analyzes his individual claim here as well.