LAMBERT v. COLVIN, 3:14-cv-00086 JTK. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20161201e31
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL JEROME T. KEARNEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's counsel filed the instant complaint against Defendant but has failed to effectuate proper service or to prosecute. The Court provided Plaintiff with additional time to perfect service; however, Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's order. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), "[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)." Rule 4(m) states: If a defendant i
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL JEROME T. KEARNEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's counsel filed the instant complaint against Defendant but has failed to effectuate proper service or to prosecute. The Court provided Plaintiff with additional time to perfect service; however, Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's order. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), "[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)." Rule 4(m) states: If a defendant is..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's counsel filed the instant complaint against Defendant but has failed to effectuate proper service or to prosecute. The Court provided Plaintiff with additional time to perfect service; however, Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's order.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), "[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)." Rule 4(m) states:
If a defendant is not served within 90 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Furthermore, a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. See Holly v. Anderson, 467 F.3d 1120, 1121 (8th Cir. 2006).
In this matter, Plaintiff was afforded one extension for serving Defendant. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service as ordered nor has Plaintiff made a showing of good cause to support an extension or to support that this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint (DE #2) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to perfect service and failure to prosecute. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
