Purnell v. Cohly

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

LEROY PURNELL PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO.: 4:22-cv-77-DMB-JMV CYNTHIA D. COHLY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default as to all named defendants [5]. For the reasons explained below, the motion is denied. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed the instant action on May 24, 2022, and summonses were issued on that date. Since that time, the docket reflects that no proper service of a summons and complaint has been made on any named defendant. In this regard, the plaintiff is directed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for the means to accomplish proper service of a complaint filed in Federal Court. Absent proper service of process, the court “lacks jurisdiction over a defendant, and an entry of default granted under such conditions is void.” Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 940 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Maryland State Firemen's Ass'n v. Chaves, 166 F.R.D. 353, 354 (D. Md. 1996) (“It is axiomatic that service of process must be effective under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a default or a default judgment may be entered against a defendant.”) Accordingly, the instant motion for entry of default [5] is DENIED as without merit. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of July, 2022. /s/ Jane M. Virden MAGISTRATE JUDGE JANE M. VIRDEN