Coble v. Theisen

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS RODNEY COBLE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-4011-JWB

CATHERINE THEISEN, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Angel Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends dismissal of this action for failure to timely serve Defendants. Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R and the time for doing so has now passed. The R&R is ADOPTED and this matter is DISMISSED for the reasons stated herein.

I. Facts and Procedural History On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed this complaint against Catherine Theisen, BESCO LLC, Joshua Mathews, Christen S. Coble, the State of Kansas, and the Supreme Court. (Doc. 1.)

Blank summons forms were provided to Plaintiff on that same date. Plaintiff had 90 days to serve summons on each defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). No return of service or other confirmation of service of process has been filed. Magistrate Judge Mitchell issued a show cause order on May 13. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order. Magistrate Judge Mitchell then issued the R&R recommending dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m). (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R&R. II. Standard “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but a district court cannot assume the role of an advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). And pro se plaintiffs must follow the same rules of procedure that govern represented litigants. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

III. Analysis Magistrate Judge Mitchell recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). Based on the procedural history, Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants within 90 days as required under the rule. Rule 4(m) states that if service is not timely made, the court “must dismiss the action without prejudice.” The court may extend the time to serve if good cause is shown by Plaintiff. The record reflects that Plaintiff has taken no action after filing this matter and has failed to respond to the court’s order.

After review, the court finds that dismissal without prejudice for failure to timely serve Defendants is warranted.

IV. Conclusion Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1st day of July, 2025. __s/ John W. Broomes__________ JOHN W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE