Heather Rozar Abney and Frank Abney v. Forrest County Child Protective...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION HEATHER ROZAR ABNEY and FRANK ABNEY PLAINTIFFS v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-165-KHJ-MTP FORREST COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, ET AL. DEFENDANTS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte upon Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants State of Mississippi, Jameshia Lacy, Kelteshia Russell, Shannon Rogers, Missy Roberts, Kirby Miller Downs, Zelda Fairly, Jeremy Pegues, Amy Snyder, Christopher Rand Jones, Sharene Conerly, Sandra Clayton, Andrea Smith, Kenya Gatlin, Alison Harrison, Porsche Williams, Natasha Miller, Nicole Bobles, Latoya Smith, Avery Holder, and Mark Williamson.

On November 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this action against the Mississippi Department of Child Services, the State of Mississippi, Kristie Leggett, Jameshia Lacy, and Kelteshia Russell.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiffs were required to serve Defendants on or before February 10, 2026. Plaintiff had not served any Defendant by February 10, 2026, but on that date, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [2] adding several new Defendants and filed a Motion [3] seeking additional time to serve Defendants. The Court granted Plaintiffs until March 12, 2026, to serve Defendants. See February 11, 2026, Text Only Order.

On March 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion [8] requesting another extension of the deadline to serve Defendants. They sought a 60-day extension. Noting that this action had been pending for more than four months at that time, the Court found that a more modest 30-day extension should be granted. Thus, Plaintiffs were granted until April 13, 2026, to serve Defendants. See Order [9]. The Court warned Plaintiffs that if service upon any Defendant was not perfected and proof thereof filed with the Court by April 13, 2026, or the Court did not extend the time for service based upon a showing of good cause, any unserved Defendant may be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Id. Plaintiffs served Defendants Forrest County Child Protective Services and Kristie Leggett.1 The record, however, does not reflect that any other Defendant has been served, and no other Defendant has filed a responsive pleading or otherwise appeared in this action.

Plaintiffs have not served all Defendants and filed the proof of service by the deadline to do so, as extended by the Court. The Court warned Plaintiffs that any unserved Defendant would be dismissed if they failed to properly serve the Defendant (and file the proof of service), and Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for another extension of time to serve Defendants.

RECOMMENDATION As Plaintiffs have failed in their obligation to properly serve and file the proof of service for Defendants State of Mississippi, Jameshia Lacy, Kelteshia Russell, Shannon Rogers, Missy Roberts, Kirby Miller Downs, Zelda Fairly, Jeremy Pegues, Amy Snyder, Christopher Rand Jones, Sharene Conerly, Sandra Clayton, Andrea Smith, Kenya Gatlin, Alison Harrison, Porsche Williams, Natasha Miller, Nicole Bobles, Latoya Smith, Avery Holder, and Mark Williamson, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs’ claims against these Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT In accordance with the Rules of this Court, any party, within fourteen days after being served a copy of this recommendation, may serve and file written objections to the

1 In a Motion [14] filed of record, these Defendants stated that there is no entity known as “Forrest County Child Protection Services,” and the proper party is the Mississippi Department of Child Protective Services, which will be substituted into this action at a later date. recommendations, with a copy to the District Judge, the U.S. Magistrate Judge, and the opposing party. The District Judge at that time may accept, reject or modify in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to this Court with instructions. Failure to timely file written objections to proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report will bar an aggrieved party, except on the grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal unobjected to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.

Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).

This the 7th day of May, 2026. s/Michael T. Parker UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE