Opinion
1:23-CV-01563-DII
04-01-2024
GERMAN ROMAN MANCILLAS, Plaintiff v. SU MAJESTAD MI BANDA EL MEXICANO DE CASIMIRO and CASIMIRO ZAMUDIO SANTOS, Defendants
ORDER
SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. Dkt. 1. To date, however, there is no indication that Plaintiff has served Defendant 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 April 15, 2024, as to why Plaintiff's claims against Defendant should not be dismissed for failure to timely effectuate service. Failure to comply with the Court's order by the deadline 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) (“A district court sua sponte may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with any court order.”).