Narog et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 2/8/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-cv-429-RJC-DCK
KIM NAROG and JOHN DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, BANK OF AMERICA
HOME LOAN SERVICING LP,
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, DAVID T.
SIMPSON TRUSTEE, MIDLAND
LOAN SERVICE INC.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint
on September 2, 2011. (Doc. No. 1). The case docket reflects that a summons was issued by the
Clerk of Court on September 2, 2011 for service of the Complaint on Defendant Midland Loan
Service, (Doc. No. 2), and on October 12, 2011 for service on Carroll Management Group and
David T. Simpson, (Doc. No. 6). However, the docket contains neither (1) a return of summons
or proof of service of the Complaint on Defendant, nor (2) an executed waiver of service by
Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:
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.
Plaintiffs had until January 3, 2012 to serve their Complaint on all defendants. By its Order
dated January 18, 2012, (Doc. No. 20), the Court warned Plaintiffs that if they did not serve their

Complaint on the remaining defendants within fourteen (14) days, their case would be dismissed
without prejudice. The time has now expired and Plaintiffs have not filed anything with this
Court indicating that they served the defendants remaining in this action.
Further, as the Magistrate Judge noted in his M&R, (Doc. No. 18 at 2), Plaintiffs have
failed to keep the Court updated on appropriate contact information since September 22, 2011.
The Clerk’s Office has attempted, unsuccessfully, to send copies of filings to Plaintiffs at the
address provided to the Court. By its Order dated January 18, 2012, (Doc. No. 20), this Court
ordered Plaintiffs to provide updated contact information within fourteen (14) days. The Court
stated that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ claims against all
remaining defendants. (Id.). The time has now expired and Plaintiffs have not provided updated
contact information to the Court. Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants in this
action are DISMISSED.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), is
DISMISSED.

Signed: February 8, 2012

2