CHIBUEZE C. ANAEME,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; JACKSONVILLE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE;
JACKSONVILLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; DUVAL COUNTY
PRE-TRIAL DETENTION
FACILITY; JAMES L.
MONTGOMERY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; NATHANIEL GLOVER,
JR., individually and in his official
capacity as Sheriff of the Jacksonville
Sheriff's Office/Jacksonville Police
Department; K. COPELAND,
individually and in her official
capacity as Lieutenant of the
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office;
OFFICER FOWLER, OFFICER
HENDERSON, OFFICER
LEONARD, OFFICER SMITH,
OFFICER JESSE, OFFICER SCOTT,
OFFICER JOE SCOTT, OFFICER
WOLLITZ, OFFICER C. G. BLUNT,
OFFICER D. BRANTLEY, OFFICER
MESSICK, individually and their
official capacities as Sergeants of the
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office;
OFFICER ROBERT, OFFICER FRED
FLINSTONE, OFFICER R.W.
REONAS, OFFICER M.J. POWERS,
individually and in their official
capacities as officers of Jacksonville
Sheriff's Office/Police Department
and the arresting, responding and
reporting officers; OFFICER PAGE,
OFFICER SCHEINH
|
|
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that a district court may dismiss a case without prejudice where service of process is not effectuated within 120 days of filing the complaint. Here, nearly six months passed between the time Mr. Anaeme filed his complaint and when the district court issued its notice of impending dismissal alerting Mr. Anaeme that proper service had not been established. Upon receiving the court's notice, Mr. Anaeme failed to establish proper service or any cause for why the case should be retained.
Mr. Anaeme contends that he proceeded in the lawsuit as if he had effectuated proper service and filed motions pertaining to the Defendants non-response. He also maintains that pursuant to the district court's notice of impending dismissal, he called the courtroom deputy (the bottom of the form advises that "inquiries regarding this notice should be directed to" the named courtroom deputy with phone number) within the time allowed to cure the service problem. While this might give us pause as implying that the service problem could be remedied with a simple phone call, Mr. Anaeme does not so argue, nor does he argue that he was misled. Cf. Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 842 (10th Cir. 1995) (district court should consider the difficulties inherent in the service rules for pro se litigants).
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.
2. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.