Opinion
1:24-CV-00044-RP
04-19-2024
PATRICK LEE DUNCAN, Plaintiff v. CLIFFORD A. BROWN, LEON GRIZZARD, and TERRY KEEL, Defendants
ORDER
SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Patrick Lee Duncan filed his Complaint on January 11, 2024 (Dkt. 1). To date, however, there is no indication that Plaintiff has served Defendants with the complaint and summons. “If 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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). More than 90 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his Complaint.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing on or before May 10, 2024, as to why the claims against Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (action may be dismissed for want of prosecution or failure to comply with court order); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court has authority to dismiss case for want of prosecution or failure to comply with court order).