Prothro v. Platte Valley Medical Group

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedJuly 20, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00132
StatusUnknown

This text of Prothro v. Platte Valley Medical Group (Prothro v. Platte Valley Medical Group) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prothro v. Platte Valley Medical Group, (D. Neb. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DAVID PROTHRO,

Plaintiff, 8:23CV132

vs. ORDER

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL GROUP, and KEARNEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 5, 2023. (Filing No. 1). More than 90 days has elapsed since the Complaint was filed. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any return of service or signed waiver indicating service on the defendants, the defendants have not entered a voluntary appearance, and Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to complete service. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he must nevertheless comply with local rules, court orders, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (“In general, pro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court’s orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2002) (a litigant’s “pro se status d[oes] not entitle him to disregard the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[.]”). Therefore, Plaintiff must show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until August 11, 2023, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or take other appropriate action. The failure to timely comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Dated this 20th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson United States Magistrate Judge

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Prothro v. Platte Valley Medical Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prothro-v-platte-valley-medical-group-ned-2023.