Rhodes v. Mr. Bult's Inc.

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 40 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant Ricky Douglas filed by Defendant Mr. Bult's Inc., 41 MOTION to Add Party Request for Summons of Defendant Ricky Douglas filed by Plaintiff Quanita Rhodes. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/5/16. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Mr. Bult's, Inc.'s motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint against defendant Ricky Douglas (ECF #40) is GRANTED. Defendant Ricky Douglas is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request that a summons be issued for defendant Ricky Douglas (ECF #41) is DENIED.(CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
QUANITA RHODES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. BULT’S, INC. and
RICKY DOUGLAS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-CV-01075 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Mr. Bult’s, Inc.’s motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendant Ricky Douglas and plaintiff Quanita
Rhodes’s request for a summons to be issued for defendant Ricky Douglas. The Court
will grant the motion to dismiss and deny the request for summons.
On August 19, 2015, plaintiff filed her amended complaint adding defendant
Ricky Douglas as a defendant. At that time, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
provided:
Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the
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.
Until the pending motion to dismiss was filed on December 23, 2015, plaintiff had not
requested service of the summons and amended complaint on defendant Douglas.
Instead, plaintiff first requested the issuance of a summons in response to the motion to
dismiss. At the time of the request for a summons, more than 120 days had elapsed from

the filing of the amended complaint adding defendant Douglas as a party. Plaintiff’s
request fails to state good cause for the failure to serve defendant Douglas. In fact, the
request does not state any reason for the failure to request the issuance of a summons or
the failure to serve defendant Douglas within the time required by Rule 4(m). As a result,
this Court will dismiss the action against defendant Douglas without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Mr. Bult’s, Inc.’s motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendant Ricky Douglas (ECF #40) is
GRANTED. Defendant Ricky Douglas is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request that a summons
be issued for defendant Ricky Douglas (ECF #41) is DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2