Summary
noting that the case had been previously remanded "to reconstruct at least that part of the missing transcript containing the rationale for its decision to dismiss. . . ."
Summary of this case from State v. HawthorneOpinion
No. 370, 2001
Submitted: January 10, 2003
Decided: February 10, 2003
Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 00C-08-104
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
RICARDO M. PARAS, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, DR. JAFRI, DR. IVENS, and DR. PENSERGA, Defendants Below-Appellees. No. 370, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 10, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
Myron T. Steele, Justice
ORDER
This 10th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the Superior Court's report following remand and the parties' supplemental briefing, it appears to the Court that:
(1) After considering this appeal on the basis of the briefs and the record below, this Court concluded that we could not conduct a meaningful review of the Superior Court's judgment dismissing Paras' complaint because the rationale for the judgment had been pronounced in open court and the tape of that proceeding was missing and had not been previously transcribed. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the Superior Court "to reconstruct at least that part of the missing transcript containing the rationale for its decision to dismiss" the complaint.
(2) The Superior Court issued its report following remand, which contains its factual findings and rulings of law. Upon consideration of the Superior Court's report and the parties' supplemental memoranda, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court, which dismissed Paras' complaint against the corporate and individual defendants for insufficient service of process, should be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision following remand. Paras did not present any evidence to support a finding that the person upon whom he served his complaint had authority to accept service of process for the defendants. The undisputed record, therefore, reflects that Paras did not properly serve any of the defendants within 120 days of filing his complaint. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err in dismissing his complaint.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.