Webb v. Spearhead Investments, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PAMELA WEBB,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-02139-JAR-RES

v.

SPEARHEAD INVESTMENTS, LLC AND SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff Pamela Webb filed a complaint naming Spearhead Investments, LLC and Sylvan Learning Center as Defendants. ECF No. 1. As reflected on the docket, on April 29, 2025, summonses for both Defendants were issued to Plaintiff’s “Attorney for service.” Defendant Spearhead Investments, LLC entered an appearance and filed an answer on May 20, 2025, but the docket does not reflect that Sylvan Learning Center has been served and no additional action has been taken with regard to Defendant Sylvan Learning Center. The Court discussed this issue with the parties during the June 24, 2025 scheduling conference. Because the docket still did not reflect any attempts to serve this Defendant, on August 1, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by August 15, 2025, why the Magistrate Judge should not recommend that the District Judge dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve within 90 days after the complaint was filed. ECF No. 9. That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has provided no written response. Rule 4(m) states that 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.” By failing to respond to the show-cause order, Plaintiff has provided no explanation for this failure to timely serve Defendant Sylvan Learning Center or shown good cause for an

extension of the time to serve this Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with her obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court recommends that the District Judge dismiss the action without prejudice as to Defendant Sylvan Learning Center pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to serve within 90 days after the complaint was filed. See Vann v. Fewell, No. 20-cv-03200-JAR-GEB, 2023 WL 6216342, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2023) (dismissing without prejudice a plaintiff’s action against one named defendant when the “Plaintiff has made no attempt to execute service on Defendant” and “Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the failure”). * * *

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(b), Plaintiff may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy. If she fails to file objections within the fourteen-day time period, no appellate review of the factual and legal determinations in this report and recommendation will be allowed by any court. See In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff Pamela Webb’s action against Defendant Sylvan Learning Center be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Dated: September 9, 2025, at Topeka, Kansas. /s/ Rachel E. Schwartz Rachel E. Schwartz United States Magistrate Judge