Mumme v. United States

E.D. North Carolina

Mumme v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 27, 2025

Docket7:24-cv-00767

StatusUnknown

This text of Mumme v. United States (Mumme v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mumme v. United States, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:24-CV-767-BO-RJ

CHRIS MUMME, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. )

By order entered December 23, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to show cause not later than January 10, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within ninety days of the filing of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff was further warned that failure to comply with the show cause order would result in the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. . Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s December 23, 2024, order. On January 13, 2025, the Court received from plaintiff a motion pursuant to Rule 60 in which he, among other things, requests recusal of the undersigned, identifies alleged errors in the Court’s prior orders, and contends that Rule 4’s requirements have been waived by defendant’s inaction. [DE 21]. Plaintiff also attached a notice of self-representation and financial disclosure statement, which he was ordered to file in September 2024. As to recusal, plaintiff has identified no basis for recusal of the undersigned. 28 U.S.C. § 455; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff has further failed to timely respond to the Court’s order, and he has not demonstrated good cause for failing to respond within the time provided. Moreover, plaintiff's

response fails to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The complaint is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion and motion for recusal [DE 21] is DENIED. Plaintiff's motions seeking various forms of relief, [DE 4; DE 5; DE 7; DE 8; DE 9; DE 14; DE 15; DE 17], are DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this ag day of February 2025.

ex W. BOYCE □ UNITED STATES DISTRIOT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:24-CV-767-BO-RJ

CHRIS MUMME, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. )

By order entered December 23, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to show cause not later than January 10, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within ninety days of the filing of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff was further warned that failure to comply with the show cause order would result in the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. . Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s December 23, 2024, order. On January 13, 2025, the Court received from plaintiff a motion pursuant to Rule 60 in which he, among other things, requests recusal of the undersigned, identifies alleged errors in the Court’s prior orders, and contends that Rule 4’s requirements have been waived by defendant’s inaction. [DE 21]. Plaintiff also attached a notice of self-representation and financial disclosure statement, which he was ordered to file in September 2024. As to recusal, plaintiff has identified no basis for recusal of the undersigned. 28 U.S.C. § 455; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff has further failed to timely respond to the Court’s order, and he has not demonstrated good cause for failing to respond within the time provided. Moreover, plaintiff's

response fails to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The complaint is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion and motion for recusal [DE 21] is DENIED. Plaintiff's motions seeking various forms of relief, [DE 4; DE 5; DE 7; DE 8; DE 9; DE 14; DE 15; DE 17], are DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this ag day of February 2025.

ex W. BOYCE □ UNITED STATES DISTRIOT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mumme v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mumme-v-united-states-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack