Rosberg v. United States of America et al

Filing 18

ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 12/15/16. (SLW)

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL A. ROSBERG,
4:15-CV-04076-LLP

Plaintiff,

DR. BOYD and MR. DOWNING,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Paul A. Rosberg, filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 but failed to properly serve defendants. A defendant must be served
within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court

granted Rosberg an extension of time to serve, Docket 13, and on November 14,
2016, the Court ordered Rosberg to serve defendants by December 9, 2016, or
move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That date has now passed and
Rosberg has failed to do either.

"Under Rule 4(m), a district court must engage in a two-step analysis of
motions to dismiss a complaint premised upon untimely service of process."

Colasante v. Wells Fargo Corp., 81 F. App'x 611,612 (8th Cir. 2003). The Court
first inquires "whether the plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for his failure
to serve within the prescribed . . . period." Id. Here, Rosberg has not made any
demonstration of good cause. Even though "good cause is not shown, the
district court still retains the discretion to grant an extension of the time for

service." Id. at 613 (citing Adams v. AlliedSignal Gen. Aviation Avionics, 74 F.3d