Mott, Lori v. MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc.

Filing 2

Initial Order for Paid Pro Se: Plaintiff directed to serve complaint. Proof of service due 3/18/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/16/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LORI SUSAN MOTT,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

13-cv-32-wmc

STEVEN J. ADAMS
c/o MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc.,
Defendant.

This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Lori Mott who is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has
paid the $350 fee for filing this case.
The next step is for plaintiff to serve her complaint on the defendant. Under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m), a plaintiff has 120 days after filing a complaint in which to serve the defendant.
However, that is an outside limit with few exceptions. This court requires that a plaintiff act
diligently in moving the case to resolution. If plaintiff acts promptly, she should be able to serve
her complaint on the defendant well before the deadline for doing so established in Rule 4.
To help plaintiff understand the procedure for serving a complaint, I am enclosing with
this order copies of a document titled “Procedure for Serving a Complaint on Individuals in a
Federal Lawsuit.” Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 39.07, plaintiff should serve defendant Steven
Adams according to the procedure for serving an individual in a federal lawsuit. In addition, I
am enclosing to plaintiff an extra copy of her complaint and the forms she will need to send to
the defendant in accordance with the procedures set out in Option 1 of the memorandum.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff serve her complaint on the defendant promptly. She
should file proof of service of her complaint as soon as she has served the defendant. (“Proof

of service” is explained in the attachments.) By March 18, 2013, plaintiff is to file proof of
service of her complaint on the defendant or tell the court why she cannot do so. If she does not
file the proof of service or explain why she could not serve the defendant, I will order her to
explain why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Entered this 16th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2