Todd Jeude v. Ste. Genevieve County Memorial Hospital et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

TODD JEUDE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-00100-ACL ) STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY MEMORIAL ) HOSPITAL et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On September 23, 2025, the Court granted Defendant Ste. Genevieve County Memorial Hospital’s motions to dismiss and directed Plaintiff Todd Jeude to provide, within thirty days, a valid service address for Defendant Dr. Teena Sharrock. (ECF No. 52). The Court advised Jeude that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against Dr. Sharrock without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. at 11. The United States Marshals Service has attempted service on Dr. Sharrock on more than one occasion, most recently on June 16, 2025, without success. (ECF No. 49). Counsel for the Hospital previously provided Dr. Sharrock’s last-known address (ECF No. 46), which was a P.O. Box and therefore insufficient for personal service (ECF No. 49). Despite the Court’s prior order, Jeude has not provided an alternative address or other identifying information that would enable the Marshals to complete service. Therefore, dismissal under Rule 4(m) is appropriate. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal where a pro se inmate failed to provide a valid service address). Dismissal is also warranted under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s prior order. Jeude also filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 23 order. (ECF No. 57). Because the Court is dismissing this action under Rule 4(m), Jeude’s motion is moot. But even if the Court were to reach the merits of the motion, Jeude identifies no manifest error of law or fact, no newly discovered evidence, and no other grounds warranting relief under Rules 59(e) or 60(b). Instead, Jeude argues that the Court’s partial dismissal is inconsistent with its handling of his prior case, Jeude v. Ste. Genevieve Mem’! Hosp., No. 1:22-cv-151-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. May 5, 2023). Even if the two cases were procedurally identical, the Court must evaluate each action independently. Jeude’s prior case has no preclusive or precedential effect in this separate action. See Little Earth of the United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1441 (8th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jeude’s claims against Defendant Dr. Teena Sharrock are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeude’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 57) is DENIED as moot. Because all defendants have been dismissed, an Order of Dismissal accompanies this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 7" day of November 2025.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE