Opinion
CIVIL 1:21-cv-00213-MR-WCM
01-03-2022
MYRON WAYNE BODTKER, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART INCORPORATED, Defendant.
ORDER
Martin Reidinger Chief United States District Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's letter, which the Court construes as a motion for extension of time to effect service [Doc. 7].
The Plaintiff initiated this action against the Defendant Wal-Mart Incorporated on August 9, 2021. [Doc. 1]. On December 3, 2021, the Court entered an Order advising the Plaintiff that unless he demonstrated good cause for his failure to effect service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendant within fourteen (14) days, the Plaintiff's action would be dismissed without prejudice.
On December 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the present letter, which the Court construes as a motion for extension of time to effect service on the Defendant. For grounds, the Plaintiff states that he filed two separate charges of discrimination with the EEOC on two separate dates, and that he is still awaiting a right-to-sue letter on the second of those charges. [Doc. 7 at 1].
The Plaintiffs proffered reason does not constitute good cause for an extension of the time for service. A plaintiff is required by statute to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing an action under Title VII. Emrit v. Office Depot, Inc., 559 Fed.Appx. 206, 207 (4th Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, in light of the Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court will allow the Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days in which to effect service on the Defendant.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order within which to effect service on the Defendant. Failure of the Plaintiff to effect service on the Defendant within thirty (30) days shall result in a dismissal without prejudice of this action without further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.