Filed: Apr. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiff Nathan Scott's ("plaintiff") motion to reopen case. (ECF No. 7). On December 19, 2018, the court ordered dismissal of plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 4(m) for plaintiff's failure to submit proof of service upon defendants. (ECF No. 5). According to plaintiff, defendant was properly served on August 23, 2018; however, plaintiff's "counsel inadvertently neglected to file the
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is plaintiff Nathan Scott's ("plaintiff") motion to reopen case. (ECF No. 7). On December 19, 2018, the court ordered dismissal of plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 4(m) for plaintiff's failure to submit proof of service upon defendants. (ECF No. 5). According to plaintiff, defendant was properly served on August 23, 2018; however, plaintiff's "counsel inadvertently neglected to file the ..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiff Nathan Scott's ("plaintiff") motion to reopen case. (ECF No. 7).
On December 19, 2018, the court ordered dismissal of plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 4(m) for plaintiff's failure to submit proof of service upon defendants. (ECF No. 5).
According to plaintiff, defendant was properly served on August 23, 2018; however, plaintiff's "counsel inadvertently neglected to file the [a]ffidavit of [s]ervice." (ECF No. 7). Thereafter, on November 16, 2018, the court entered a notice of intent to dismiss the case pursuant to FRCP 4(m) if plaintiff did not file an affidavit of service by December 16, 2018. (ECF No. 4).
Despite receiving the benefit of the court's warning regarding plaintiff's failure to file proper proof of service, plaintiff again failed to meet his obligation. Now, plaintiff asserts in conclusory fashion that his failure to provide proper proof of service was the result of "excusable neglect," without providing any information that would support such a finding. (ECF No. 7).
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied, and his case will remain closed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion to reopen case (ECF No. 7) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
