Machulas v. Shell Point Mortgage Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION LEONARD P. MACHULAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 424-174 ) SHELL POINT MORTGAGE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) _________ O R D E R _________ Plaintiff filed the above-captioned case on August 13, 2024. (Doc. no. 1.) Because he is proceeding pro se, on August 14, 2024, the Court provided him with basic instructions regarding the development and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 3.) The Court explained Plaintiff is responsible for serving Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and directed the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4 to the August 14th Order so that Plaintiff could determine the appropriate method of service for Defendant. (Id. at 1.) The Court specifically informed Plaintiff, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), he had ninety days from the complaint filing to accomplish service and that failure to accomplish service could result in dismissal of individual Defendants or the entire case. (Id.) Now, the ninety days allowed for service has elapsed, and there is no evidence in the record that Defendant has been served. This is so despite the Court reminding Plaintiff of his responsibility for effecting service of process in its November 4, 2024 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. no. 5, p. 2.) Although Plaintiff claims he served Defendant by mail, (see doc. no. 6, p. 1), Plaintiff has filed no proof he served Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1), nor has Defendant appeared in this case, (see doc. no. 3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

Rule 4(m) empowers courts with discretion to extend the time for service when a plaintiff demonstrates good cause for failing to timely serve process or any other circumstances warrant an extension of time. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662- (1996); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 2007); Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to explain the reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4(m) to this Order for Plaintiffs perusal.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2024, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA