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, )

Download PDF
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?