Peltan v. Moroney, et al

Filing 5

DECISION AND ORDER: This case is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 5/9/17. (SCE)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAIGE PELTAN,
Plaintiff,
Case # 16-CV-324-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
CRYSTAL MORONEY and
LAW OFFICES OF CRYSTAL MORONEY, P.C.,
Defendants.

This action was commenced on April 25, 2016, when Plaintiff Paige Peltan, represented
by counsel, filed a Complaint against Defendants Crystal Moroney and Law Offices of Crystal
Moroney, P.C., and paid the requisite filing fee. See ECF No. 1. The Clerk of the Court issued
Summonses for the Defendants on April 28, 2016, however, there is no indication on the docket
that Plaintiff has caused those Summonses and the Complaint to be served on the Defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f 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.” By Order to Show Cause dated December 22, 2016, this Court
directed the Plaintiff to show cause, “in writing and before January 6, 2017, why this case should
not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to effect service within 90 days.” ECF
No. 4. The Order to Show Cause warned the Plaintiff that “Failure to comply with this Order
will result in the dismissal of this action.” Id.
Here, the Plaintiff has failed to serve the Complaint within the required time frame.
There is no indication that the Plaintiff has been diligent in her efforts to effect service in a
timely manner, and despite being ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed

for failin to serve th Complain Plaintiff has ignored the Court’s Order, and has provide no
ng
he
nt,
d
s
d
ed
explanati or reason to demonst
ion
n
trate that dis
smissal of th action is n appropria As a res
his
not
ate.
sult,
this case will be dism
missed.

CON
NCLUSION
N
For the forego
oing reasons this case is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), an the
s,
s
nd
Clerk of Court is dire
ected to clos this case.
se

IT IS SO ORD
T
DERED.
DATED:
:

Roche
ester, New York
Y
May 9, 2017
9
____
__________
___________
__________
_____
HON FRANK P GERACI, JR.
N.
P.
Chie Judge
ef
Unit States District Court
ted
t

2