From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nichols v. Schmidling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Feb 10, 2012
Case No. 10-2086-JAR (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 10-2086-JAR

02-10-2012

CURTIS NICHOLS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SCHMIDLING and JAMES ARNOLD, Defendants.


ORDER

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that, "[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 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." On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff Curtis Nichols was granted additional time to obtain service on Defendants Michael Schmidling and James Arnold and was ordered to provide the Marshals Service with the current location and address for Defendants within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order, or February 3, 2012 (Doc 59), for the purpose of serving his amended complaint. Plaintiff was advised that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the amended complaint without further prior notice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not responded to the Order nor provided Defendants' current location and address and accordingly, this action is dismissed, without prejudice, with respect to the above-named Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________

JULIE A. ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Nichols v. Schmidling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Feb 10, 2012
Case No. 10-2086-JAR (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2012)
Case details for

Nichols v. Schmidling

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS NICHOLS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SCHMIDLING and JAMES ARNOLD…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Date published: Feb 10, 2012

Citations

Case No. 10-2086-JAR (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2012)