UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ESTHER E. BAINES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-801-WWB-LHP

FL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORP,

Defendant

ORDER On August 7, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff regarding the failure to timely effect service of process on Defendant. Doc. No. 16. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s timely Response (Doc. No. 17), as well as Plaintiff’s “Motion of Default” (Doc. No. 18). Upon review, because Plaintiff has not filed proof of service demonstrating that Defendant has been properly served, nor has Plaintiff set forth any valid basis to excuse such requirement, the “Motion of Default” (Doc. No. 18), construed as a request for Clerk’s default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a),1 is DENIED. See generally United States v.

1 “[T]he clerk’s entry of default must precede an application for default judgment.” See, e.g., Awgi, LLC v. Team Smart Move, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-948-Orl-22DAB,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL Donald, No. 3:09-cv-147-J-32HTS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2009) (before a Clerk’s default can be entered against a defendant, the Court must

determine that the defendant was properly served); see also Omni Capital Int’l Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.,

(1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of

summons must be satisfied.”). Nonetheless, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 17), as well as Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 16) will be DISCHARGED, and the Court will sua sponte provide Plaintiff

an extension of time to effect service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It is ORDERED that within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file proof of proper service on Defendant. Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in a

recommendation to the presiding District Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See

Plaintiff is cautioned that although she proceeds pro se, that does not excuse compliance with all applicable Court Orders, Local Rules, and Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied,

(1989). The present filings fail to comply

12904225 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted). with Local Rule 1.08, the presiding District Judge’s typography requirements, https:/ /www.flmd.uscourts.gov /standing-order-judge-berger-revised-local-rules, as well as Local Rule 3.01(a). Doc. Nos. 17-18. Plaintiff is cautioned that future filings that fail to comply with all Court Orders, Local Rules, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be stricken or summarily denied without further notice, and may subject Plaintiff to sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this case, without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 20, 2024.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties