Gibbs et al v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing 24

ORDER: If Plaintiff's wish to pursue this action, they must provide proof of service on Defendants no later than April 15, 2014. Otherwise, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 3/27/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v.
)
Bank of America NA; Nationstar
)
Mortgage; Specialized Loan Servicing, dba )
)
SLS; Urban Settlement Services, dba
)
Urban Lending Solutions; and Does 1-5,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Barbara A. Gibbs and Melvin E. GibbsSquires,

C/A No. 4:13-cv-2938-MGL-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed this private civil suit for damages against Defendants

under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 17 U.S.C. §§ 19611968. Plaintiffs complain Defendants conspired to prevent them from obtaining a loan
modification that they believe was required as a condition of a government bailout. Plaintiff’s
purport to bring this as a class action. Compl., ECF No. 1.
On November 21, 2013, the court issued its order permitting the pro se Plaintiffs to serve
this matter on all named Defendants. ECF No. 10.1 The Order authorizing service ordered the
Clerk of Court to issue summonses and send them to Plaintiffs. Id. at 1. The November 21, 2013
Order explained to Plaintiffs that they were responsible for serving the suit on Defendants within
120 days of November 21, 2013, the date on which the summonses were issued. Id. at 1-2.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that a complaint must be served on a defendant
within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. If service is not effected within that 120-day

1

The Order explained that service could not be effected on the “John Doe” Defendants as service
can be effected only upon identified defendants. ECF No. 10 at 2. 

period, “the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that [non-served] defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Rule 4(m) also instructs the court that it must extend the
time of service for “an appropriate period” if plaintiff “shows good cause for the failure [to
serve.]” Id. The November 21, 2013 Order authorizing service expressly advised Plaintiffs that if
they had not served Defendants within the 120-day service deadline, unserved Defendants “may
be dismissed without prejudice from this case.” ECF No. 10 at 2.
Plaintiffs’ 120-day deadline for serving the Complaint on Defendants expired on March
24, 2014. To date, Plaintiffs have provided no proof-of-service information to the court, nor have
they otherwise contacted the court regarding this matter. If Plaintiffs wish to pursue this action,
they must provide proof of service on Defendants no later than April 15, 2014. Otherwise, this
action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 27, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge