Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII. Although Plaintiff served Defendant
Shalala, he failed to properly or timely serve either the United States Attorney
General or the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma as
required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i) and (m). The district court
dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to effect service. Defendant
filed this appeal in which he claims that his failure to comply with the procedural
rules is excused by the fact that he is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis
and by his reliance on the advice of a Court Clerk's office employee concerning
how to effect service.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we affirm the dismissal without
prejudice of Plaintiff's Title VII action for substantially the same reasons as
stated by the district court in its Order filed February 9, 1998. We point out that,
despite Plaintiff's claims that no delay or prejudice has occurred, the record
indicates that Plaintiff still has not attempted to properly serve the Attorney
General or the appropriate United States Attorney as Rule 4(i) requires.
Although a litigant's pro se status may affect a district court's determination of
whether the litigant has timely served under Rule 4(i) and (m), see Espinoza v.
United States, 52 F.3d 838, 842 (10th Cir. 1995), Plaintiff's pro se status does
not excuse his failure to follow the fundamental rules of civil and appellate
procedure. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe McKay
Circuit Judge
*. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
WILLIAM ROBERT BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONNA SHALALA, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Defendant - Appellee.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(11114 bytes)
(7228 bytes)
Comments to: WebMaster,
ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: September 15, 1998.
HTML markup © 1998, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1998/09/98-5050.htm.