Manik Nath v. DART and ABM Aviation

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

MANIK NATH, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-672-L-BT § DART and ABM AVIATION, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

On June 3, 2026, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) or 41(b) unless Plaintiff submits proof that Defendants DART and ABM Aviation (“Defendants”) have been served, or he shows good cause for failure to serve Defendants within the 14-day deadline for filing objections to the Report. On June 9, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Manik Nath filed “Proof[s] of Service” (Doc. 8) with respect to Kar Jablecki and William Chance Bryant; however, he did not submit proof that the named Defendants in this case—DART and ABM Aviation—have been served. He also fails to explain why he was unable to serve DART and ABM Aviation, and he does not describe the efforts undertaken by him to serve them. Moreover, according to Plaintiffs’ “Proof[s] of Service,” he personally served Kar Jablecki and William Chance Bryant, which is not allowed because he is a party to this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) (“Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.”). That Plaintiff has opted to represent himself does not excuse him from complying with applicable rules of procedure, the magistrate judge’s Report, or the consequences of failing to properly effect service on Defendants. Systems Signs Supplies v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (Sth Cir. 1990) (citing Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (Sth Cir. 1988)). Likewise, Plaintiff's ignorance of the law is not good cause for failure to effect service in compliance with Rule 4. Thus, having considered the record in this case and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant Rule 4(m) for failure to effect service on Defendants and/or Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. It is so ordered this 23rd day of June, 2026.

United States District Judge

Order — Page 2