Mckillion v. The CCS Companies

S.D. Georgia

Mckillion v. The CCS Companies

DecidedOctober 29, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00120

StatusUnknown

This text of Mckillion v. The CCS Companies (Mckillion v. The CCS Companies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mckillion v. The CCS Companies, (S.D. Ga. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

KEON MCKILLION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 124-120 ) THE CCS COMPANIES, ) ) Defendant. ) _________

O R D E R _________ Plaintiff filed the above-captioned case pro se on July 30, 2024. (Doc. no. 1.) Because he is proceeding pro se, the Court provided him with basic instructions regarding the development and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 4.) The Court explained Plaintiff is responsible for serving Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and directed the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4 to the July 30th Order so that Plaintiff could determine the appropriate method of service for Defendant. (Id. at 1.) The Court specifically informed Plaintiff, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), he had ninety days from the complaint filing to accomplish service and that failure to accomplish service could result in dismissal of individual Defendants or the entire case. (Id.) Now, the ninety days allowed for service has elapsed, and there is no evidence in the record that Defendant has been served. Indeed, there has been no docket activity since the Court entered its instruction order on July 30th. Rule 4(m) empowers courts with discretion to extend the time for service when a plaintiff demonstrates good cause for failing to timely serve process or any other circumstances warrant an extension of time. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662- 63 (1996); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 2007); Horenkamp_v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to explain the reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4(m) to this Order for Plaintiffs perusal. SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2024, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

KEON MCKILLION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 124-120 ) THE CCS COMPANIES, ) ) Defendant. ) _________

O R D E R _________ Plaintiff filed the above-captioned case pro se on July 30, 2024. (Doc. no. 1.) Because he is proceeding pro se, the Court provided him with basic instructions regarding the development and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 4.) The Court explained Plaintiff is responsible for serving Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and directed the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4 to the July 30th Order so that Plaintiff could determine the appropriate method of service for Defendant. (Id. at 1.) The Court specifically informed Plaintiff, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), he had ninety days from the complaint filing to accomplish service and that failure to accomplish service could result in dismissal of individual Defendants or the entire case. (Id.) Now, the ninety days allowed for service has elapsed, and there is no evidence in the record that Defendant has been served. Indeed, there has been no docket activity since the Court entered its instruction order on July 30th. Rule 4(m) empowers courts with discretion to extend the time for service when a plaintiff demonstrates good cause for failing to timely serve process or any other circumstances warrant an extension of time. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662- 63 (1996); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 2007); Horenkamp_v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to explain the reason(s) for the delay in service of process and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of Rule 4(m) to this Order for Plaintiffs perusal. SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2024, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mckillion v. The CCS Companies, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckillion-v-the-ccs-companies-gasd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack