MEMORANDUM ORDER

JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court having been directed by a Mandate from the Fifth Circuit for findings and conclusions as to whether Thomas Lee Atkinson ("Atkinson") was properly served with process in this case.1 To address this issue, the plaintiffs, Trevor and Jennifer Charles ("the plaintiffs"), filed an affidavit (Doc. 78-1) to establish whether service was perfected.2

This suit stems from an automobile accident between Atkinson and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed suit against Atkinson, his employer (Consolidated Fabrications Construction, Inc.), and his employer's insurance company (Amerisure Insurance Company). On August 3, 2015, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer and the insurance company (Doc. 58); the plaintiffs appealed the ruling (Doc. 61). Due to confusion in the record regarding whether the defendant Atkinson was properly served,3 the Fifth Circuit was uncertain that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Order of USCA, Doc. 78-1, at 3-4 ("[A]lthough Atkinson has never appeared in this litigation, if he has been served, this court would lack jurisdiction under § 1291.").

The Court finds the following facts regarding service of process on Atkinson. On July 25, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel sent by certified mail the original State Court petition and citation to Atkinson at 27604 Fair Hope Meadow, Kingwood, Texas 77339. Sotile Aff. ¶ 3, Doc. 78-1; Robert Aff., Doc. 78-3. At the time of service, this was Atkinson's last known address as provided by the October 2013 accident report and a March 2014 appointment of counsel determination in the criminal proceeding entitled State of Louisiana v. Thomas Atkinson, No. 514473, 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana. Sotile Aff. ¶ 5, Doc. 78-1; see Accident R., Doc. 78-2; Appointment of Counsel Determination, Doc. 78-2. On September 8, 2014, the petition and citation were returned to sender and marked "unclaimed." Robert Aff., Doc. 78-3.

On December 5, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel hired an investigator to locate Atkinson. Pet'rs' Resp. to Rule to Show Cause ¶ 2, Doc. 21. A contact number was located, and the plaintiffs' counsel and the investigator communicated with Atkinson and his family. Id. Although informed about the suit, Atkinson would not provide his current address. Subsequently, an investigation of Atkinson's employment records turned up an address in Nebraska—803 Toluca Avenue, Alliance, Nebraska. See id.; Proof of Service, Doc. 78-4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs hired Black Falcon Legal Services ("Black Falcon") to perfect service on Atkinson. Pet'rs' Resp. to Rule to Show Cause ¶ 3, Doc. 21. Black Falcon confirmed with neighbors that Atkinson resided at the Alliance, Nebraska address and attempted service on Atkinson at said address. Id. ¶ 3-4. On May 20, 2015, Black Falcon left a copy of the petition and citation with Tammy Standage—a resident at the Alliance address and mother of Atkinson's child. Proof of Service, Doc. 78-4 (process server's sworn information).

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the procedure for service of process. Specifically, Rule 4(e) provides that an individual may be served by:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Here, the plaintiffs' investigation uncovered a current address for the defendant Atkinson in Alliance, Nebraska. After several attempts, the process server left a copy of the petition and certificate at that address with the mother of Atkinson's child, who also resided therein. Thus, the Court finds that service was perfected on the defendant Atkinson by leaving a copy of the summons at his usual place of abode with someone of a suitable age and discretion who resides there. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).