Stevens v. City of Vidalia et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Motion to Dismiss Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/26/2014 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY L. STEVENS

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-116(DCB)(MTP)

CITY OF VIDALIA, BY AND THROUGH
ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS,
ITS MAYOR, HON. HIRAM COPELAND; AND
CHARLIE C. ROGERS, INDIVIDUALLY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on defendants City of Vidalia
and Charlie C. Rogers’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with
Court’s Order of March 17, 2014, or alternatively Renewed Motion to
Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (docket entry 12).
Having carefully considered the motion, to which no response has
been filed, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds as follows:
On July 2, 2013, the plaintiff Timothy L. Stevens filed suit
in

Adams

County

Circuit

Court

against

the

City

of

Vidalia,

Louisiana, and Charlie C. Rogers for injuries the plaintiff claims
he

sustained

in

a

July

2,

2010,

car

accident

in

Natchez,

Mississippi. Almost one year following the filing of his suit, the
plaintiff has yet to serve process on the defendants; nor, despite
invitation by the Court, has the plaintiff shown good cause for his
failure to do so.
By Order of March 17, 2014, the Court allowed the plaintiff
fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of the Order to serve

process.

The deadline has long passed, and the defendants seek

dismissal with prejudice.

Out of an abundance of caution, the

Court shall allow the plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of
entry of this Order to serve the defendants or explain how he is
prevented from doing so.

As mentioned in the Court’s previous

order, a relevant factor is whether the delay in service of process
is attributable to the plaintiff’s attorney or to the plaintiff
himself.
days.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to respond within thirty

In addition, if he is no longer representing the plaintiff,

he must so notify the Court within the same time period, as well as
notify his client.

Failure to comply with this Order could result

in dismissal of this action.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants City of Vidalia and
Charlie C. Rogers’ Motion to Dismiss (docket entry 12) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days
from the date of entry of this Order to serve process or otherwise
comply with the terms of this Order as set forth above.

Failure to

do so could result in dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of June, 2014.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2