Campbell v. Hoffman

District Court, D. New Mexico·Decided October 8, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-00615·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CHANTELLE CAMPBELL and NATHANIEL CAMPBELL, Plaintiffs, v. No. 21-cv-0615 WJ/SMV JAMES EDWARD HOFFMAN and US EXPRESS LOGISTICS II LLC, Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 2, 2021. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiffs had 90 days from filing the Complaint, or until September 30, 2021, to effect service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (2015). There is no indication on the record that service of process has been effected with respect to Defendant James Edward Hoffman. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs show good cause why their claims against Defendant Hoffman should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the service provision of Rule 4(m). See Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs must file their response no later than October 29, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED.

STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Campbell v. Hoffman, (D.N.M. 2021).

Campbell v. Hoffman (Campbell v. Hoffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toby J. Espinoza v. United States
52 F.3d 838 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)