Sharlene v. USPS

Filing 16

Order Accepting 11 Findings and Recommendations on Case and dismissing without prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 6/5/2024) (chmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHARLENE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
USPS,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-330-L-BT

ORDER
On May 17, 2024, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 11) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without
prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b) as a result of
Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve Defendant USPS with a summons and copy of her Complaint
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the May 12, 2024 deadline set by the
magistrate judge on March 11, 2024. See Doc. 8. Alternatively, the magistrate judge recommends
that no action be taken by the undersigned if, within the time for filing objections to the Report,
Plaintiff properly effects service on Defendant USPS or shows good cause for her failure or
inability to effect service on Defendant USPS. To assist Plaintiff, the Report explains in detail
what is required to properly effect service on Defendant USPS under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a response (Doc. 12) to the
Report and three “Proof[s] of Service” (Docs. 12-15). In her response, Plaintiff states that she has
“1 of 4 pages of Fedex Tracking detail and proof of delivery” for the Postmaster General and
Attorney General, which she attached to her response. Doc. 12. Plaintiff asserts that she hopes

Order – Page 1

that this information will serve as “proof of delivery.” Doc. 12. Plaintiff’s response and the
information attached to her response are insufficient to establish that service has been properly
effected under Rule 4 because, as before, they contain no signatures or verification of truth as
required by Rule 4’s affidavit requirement and as explained in the Report. See Report 3 (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1)).
Moreover, neither Plaintiff’s response nor her Proofs of Service for Postmaster General
Louis DeJoy (Doc. 13) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (Docs. 14, 15) are sufficient to
effect service on the Postmaster General of the USPS because, as explained in the Report,
Defendant USPS is an agency of the United States. As a result, Plaintiff must serve the United
States and also send a copy of the summons and her Complaint by registered or certified mail to
the agency, which she has not done. See Report 3-4 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)). Two of
Plaintiff’s Proofs of Service (Docs. 14, 15) also indicate that these attempted services were
disallowed. For these reasons, and because Plaintiff has not requested additional time to serve
Defendant USPS or shown good cause for her failure or inability to properly serve Defendant
USPS, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that this action should be dismissed without
prejudice.
Thus, having considered the file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the
court. The court, therefore, dismisses without prejudice this action pursuant to Rule 4(m) and
41(b) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to effect service on Defendant USPS within the time required
by Rule 4(m) and her failure to properly serve Defendant USPS by May 12, 2024, as required by
the magistrate judge’s March 11, 2024 order. Further, as Plaintiff has not requested additional
time to serve Defendant USPS or shown good cause for her failure or inability to serve Defendant

Order – Page 2

USPS in response to the magistrate judge’s March 11, 2024 order or the May 17, 2024 Report, the
court determines that no further extension of time is warranted.
It is so ordered this 5th day of May, 2024.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 3