Opinion
22-1242-DDC-BGS
09-18-2023
JEFFREY K. BUSBY, Plaintiff, v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES and CHRISTINE BIESER Defendants.
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
BROOKS G. SEVERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff, Jeffery Busby, filed a Complaint naming as Defendants, Lumen Technologies and Christine Bieser. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff moved for and was granted in forma pauperis status in this Court. Summons was subsequently issued, and service was attempted on the Defendants. Defendant Lumen Technologies was served on January 9, 2023. Service was attempted on Defendant Christine Bieser; however, it was not effectuated. (See Doc. 13) Defendant Lumen Technologies moved to dismiss the Complaint. On September 15, 2023, the District Court granted Defendant Lumen Technologies' motion to dismiss. Defendant Christine Bieser remains unserved in this case, and considerable time has passed since service was attempted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) governs the time limit for service. Rule 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Additionally, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) provides that the court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. Here, Plaintiff has not effectuated service of process on Defendant Christine Bieser and more than 90 days has passed since the Complaint was filed.
Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing by October 20, 2023, why the undersigned Magistrate Judge should not recommend that his claims be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) and/or Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.