Hall v. Bell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

SYLVESTER C. HALL PLAINTIFF

No. 3:25-cv-14-DPM

JOHN BELL; TODD MURRAY; PHIL REYNOLDS; MICHAEL LADD; CHRIS MORLEDGE; and BOOKER PENNINGTON DEFENDANTS ORDER Motion, Doc. 24, denied without prejudice as moot. The Court has already directed the Marshal to serve process on all defendants. Doc. 5; Doc. 21. The Marshal was unable to serve Ladd, Morledge, and Murray at the addresses Hall provided. It was Hall’s responsibility to provide valid service addresses for them. Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). He hasn’t, and the time to do so has now passed. Doc. 21 at 2. Hall’s claims against Ladd, Morledge, and Murray are therefore dismissed without prejudice; and they are dismissed as defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Dismissal is required despite any actual notice they may have of this lawsuit. Sieg v. Karnes, 693 F.2d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 1982).

So Ordered. _ LP Arpoll fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 13 Myy 2005

-2-