Scott v. Thorpe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION HOSEA SCOTT, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV420-095 ) OFFICER THORPE and ) CHATHAM COUNTY OF ) SAVANNAH, GEORGIA POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiff has filed a request for the Court to provide forms and instructions to authorize service of process by the United States Marshal Service. Doc. 17. The Court construes this as a motion made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). As plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, he remains “responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). On plaintiff’s request, however, the Court may authorize the United States Marshals to serve process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Use of the United States Marshals in this way is warranted only when service is not otherwise possible through reasonable efforts. See, GMAC Real Estate, LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., 2010 WL 2465170, at *2 (M.D.

Fla. June 10, 2010) (denying motion for service by U.S. Marshals where plaintiff provided “no factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service of process and [did] not include any legal authority in support of its Motion.”). As plaintiff has provided no indication that he has previously attempted to serve defendants or that the United States Marshal Service is necessary to effectuate service, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to make reasonable efforts to serve defendants within 90 days of this Order. If plaintiff is unable serve defendants within the allotted time, he may file with the Court a renewed motion for the authorization of Marshal service, including an affidavit outlining all steps taken to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

SO ORDERED, this 8th day of July, 2020.

CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA