Sherwood v. Conmed
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 3/23/2016. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff.(jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JASON BROOKS SHERWOOD,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.
3:15CV241
CONMED,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jason Brooks Sherwood,
and ^
forma pauperis,
matter
is
Defendant
before
the
a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se
filed this civil rights action.
Court
on
the
time
Conmed within
Sherwood's
failure
to
required by Federal
The
serve
Rule
of
Civil Procedure 4{m).^
Pursuant
4 (m)
to
the version of
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
in effect at the time the Court filed the action,
had one hundred and twenty
(12 0)
complaint to serve the defendant.
days
from the
Here,
Sherwood
filing of
that period commenced
^ Rule 4(m) provided:
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.
This subdivision (m) does not
apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f)
or 4(j)(1).
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
4(m)
(2015).
the
on October 30,
2015.
More
than one hundred and twenty
days elapsed and Sherwood failed to serve Conmed.
by Memorandum Order entered on March 4,
Sherwood to show good cause
for his
Sherwood
to
failed
to
respond
the
(120)
Accordingly,
2016 the Court directed
failure
March
to serve Conmed.
4,
2016
Memorandum
Order.
Because Sherwood fails to demonstrate good cause for his
failure
to
serve
Conmed,
the
action will
be
dismissed without
prejudice.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to Sherwood.
/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?