UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

BRYANT TERRELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-468-CEM-LHP

TERRENCE WOODARD,

Defendant

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Have a U.S. Marshal Deliver the Case Summons to the Defendant. Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asks that the Court authorize service by the United States Marshals Service, stating that the Defendant is “[his] previous employer at Great Oaks Village Orange County Government” and that Plaintiff is “unable to access the company property because [he has] been terminated from Orange County Government.” Id. Upon review, the motion (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. As an initial matter, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that “the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under

or as a seaman under

.” Here, because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court is not obligated to

order that service be made by the United States Marshal. See Somerville v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 6:24-cv-2185-JSS-EJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2024). And “although Rule 4(c)(3) . . . gives the [c]ourt discretion to order the United States Marshal to serve civil process, the Advisory Committee Notes

state that [such] appointment . . . is generally proper when it is necessary to keep the peace.”

(citing Nappi v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014)). Plaintiff has not argued that

circumstance is present here, and Plaintiff’s motion does not establish why service by the United States Marshal is necessary, given that there are available avenues for Plaintiff to effect service, to include retaining a private process server or requesting

that Defendant waive service. See Prosperous v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2017) (denying Rule 4(c)(3) motion for same reason); see also GMAC Real Est., LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., No. 2:09- cv-546-FtM-36SPC,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) (denying

motion to appoint special process server where “Plaintiff has provided no factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service of process and does not include any legal authority in support of its Motion other than Rule 4(c)(3)”). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 22, 2025.

| ay □□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Qo