Sanders v. Deerfield E. Retirement

Filing 27

ORDER that the Plaintiff shall show good cause within 14 days of service of this Order for the failure to effect service on the Defendant Deerfield Episcopal Retirement Community, Incorporated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that fail ure of the Plaintiff to respond in writing within 14 days shall result in a dismissal without prejudice of this action without further order of the Court. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 05/15/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00202-MR-DLH

LINDA SANDERS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
DEERFIELD EPISCOPAL
)
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY,
)
INCORPORATED,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the
Defendant Deerfield E. Retirement on July 16, 2013.
Amended Complaint was filed on September 9, 2013.
October

3,

2013,

the

Defendant

Deerfield

[Doc. 1].
[Doc. 5].

Episcopal

An
On

Retirement

Community, incorrectly named as Deerfield E. Retirement, filed a motion to
dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4)
and (5) based on the Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve a summons and
complaint upon the Defendant. [Doc. 7]. In response, the Plaintiff moved
for leave to file an Amended Complaint to name the proper Defendant and

for an extension of time to perfect service on such Defendant. [Doc. 12].
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion, giving her until December 30, 2013
to file an Amended Complaint naming the proper Defendant and until
January 14, 2014 to perfect service on the Defendant. [Doc. 19].
The Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on December 30,
2013,

naming

only

Deerfield

Episcopal

Retirement

Community,

Incorporated as a Defendant. [Doc. 21]. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff
filed a motion for extension of time to perfect service. [Doc. 25]. The Court
denied this motion as moot, noting that the January 14, 2014 deadline
related only to the Plaintiff’s action against Deerfield E. Retirement, and
that Plaintiff had 120 days from the filing of the Second Amended
Complaint to perfect service on the new Defendant, Deerfield Episcopal
Retirement Community, Incorporated. [Doc. 26].
More than 120 days has now passed from the filing of the Second
Amended Complaint, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the
Plaintiff has served the Defendant Deerfield Episcopal Retirement
Community, Incorporated with the Second Amended Complaint.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
pertinent part, as follows:
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after
the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its
2

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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
The Plaintiff is hereby placed on notice that unless good cause is
shown to the Court for her failure to effect service of the Summons and
Second Amended Complaint on the Defendant Deerfield Episcopal
Retirement Community, Incorporated within fourteen (14) days from service
of this Order, the Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant shall be dismissed
without prejudice without further order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall show good
cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order for the failure to
effect

service

on

the

Defendant

Deerfield

Episcopal

Retirement

Community, Incorporated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure of the Plaintiff to respond in
writing within fourteen (14) days shall result in a dismissal without prejudice
of this action without further order of the Court.
Signed: May 15, 2014

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3