ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 4), filed April 4, 2014.

On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff Harmeet Singh filed this action under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) against the Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Doc. 1.) After initiating suit, no summons issued, and Plaintiff did not file proof of service with the Court on or before March 5, 2014, as required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), 4(i), 4(l), and 4(m). Accordingly, on March 25, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 3.)

Plaintiff responded to the show cause Order by certifying "under penalty of perjury" that the following defendants were served via first class mail on November 6, 2013, and via certified mail on April 4, 2014:

(Doc. 4.) Plaintiff further requested that the action not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Id.)

Proper service on an agency or corporation of the United States requires compliance with the provisions of Rule 4(i)(2): "To serve a United States agency or corporation, . . . a party must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee." Service on the United States requires a party to:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1).

Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause does not evidence compliance with the foregoing requirements. First, service via "first class mail" does not comply with the Rule; thus, the alleged "service" on November 6, 2013 was ineffective. Second, the service via "certified mail" on April 4, 2014, also was ineffective because such service was untimely and was not made on the persons identified in Rules 4(i)(1)(A)(i), 4(i)(1)(A)(ii), or 4(i)(2).1 Further, although the response includes a conclusory assertion that the United States Attorney General was served (as necessary under Rule 4(i)(1)(B)), there is no indication that both the complaint and summons were sent via registered or certified mail as required under Rule 4(c)(1).

In short, Plaintiff's Response fails to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. More than 50 days have passed since the deadline for proper service on the Defendant in this action (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)), and Plaintiff has not submitted satisfactory proof of service pursuant to Rule 4(l) or requested an extension of time to do so pursuant to Rule 4(i)(4) or 4(m). Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed. See Shalash v. Mukasey, 576 F.Supp.2d 902, 906 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (dismissing 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) action for failure to comply with service under Rule 4(i)).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED.