QUICK v. ACAYLAR, 4:14-cv-4712-RBH. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20150415d47
Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . This case was removed to this Court on December 12, 2014. The Complaint named Roy Parnell and Marlboro Drug Co. Inc. as Defendants in addition to Francis Acaylar and CareSouth Carolina, Inc. The docket, however, reflects no activity and no proof of service with regard to Defendants Roy Parnell or Marlboro Drug Co. Inc. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a Plaintiff to file proof of service of a Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(1); however, as
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . This case was removed to this Court on December 12, 2014. The Complaint named Roy Parnell and Marlboro Drug Co. Inc. as Defendants in addition to Francis Acaylar and CareSouth Carolina, Inc. The docket, however, reflects no activity and no proof of service with regard to Defendants Roy Parnell or Marlboro Drug Co. Inc. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a Plaintiff to file proof of service of a Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(1); however, as ..
More
ORDER
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
This case was removed to this Court on December 12, 2014. The Complaint named Roy Parnell and Marlboro Drug Co. Inc. as Defendants in addition to Francis Acaylar and CareSouth Carolina, Inc. The docket, however, reflects no activity and no proof of service with regard to Defendants Roy Parnell or Marlboro Drug Co. Inc.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a Plaintiff to file proof of service of a Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(1); however, as of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed such. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the FRCP, service of the summons and complaint must be effected within 120 days after the filing of the Complaint, or for removal cases, within 120 days from the date of removal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Wallace v. Microsoft Corp., 596 F.3d 703, 706 (10th Cir. 2010). If Plaintiff fails to comply within such time limitation, the Court may on its own initiative dismiss the action against that defendant after notice to the Plaintiff. See id.; Local Rule 4.01 (D.S.C.).
Therefore, the Court hereby provides notice to the Plaintiff that it will dismiss this action as to Defendants Roy Parnell and Marlboro Drug Co. Inc., without prejudice, ten days from the date of this Order if proof of service has not been filed within that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
