Richmond v. Dahmm

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

TYRON RICHMOND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:24-cv-01436-MTS ) KEVIN DAHMM, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Tyron Richmond’s Notice of Attempt to Issue Service. Doc. [19]. Plaintiff’s purported service by “personally hand deliver[ing] a handwritten summons and a copy of the amended complaint” to both Defendants did not suffice. See Doc. [19] at 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(F)–(G); id. at 4(c)(2). Nor has Plaintiff “properly supported [a] motion requesting that the Court order service on his behalf.” See Doc. [18] at 1. Thus, Plaintiff must provide the Clerk of Court a Notice of Process Server form along with proposed summonses. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.02(B). As previously ordered, Plaintiff must effectuate service on Defendants Bedore and Dahmm no later than Monday, August 18, 2025. See Doc. [18] at 2; see also Amara v. Dep’t of Navy, 4:22-cv-1055-SEP, 2022 WL 17414953, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2022) (“Plaintiff is advised that he is responsible for serving Defendants because he is not proceeding in forma pauperis.”). Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice as to any unserved Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (4)(c), (e), (m); see also Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.”). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send Plaintiff, along with a copy of this Memorandum and Order, a copy of the Court’s notice of Intent to Use Process Server form (form MOED-0004) and two blank summonses. So ORDERED this 16th day of July 2025. eC ATTHEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2-